He will bless in no name and kingdom. Sources: Here it seems that he should have blessed him with Baruch Dayan the truth, it should be. But in fact I pondered, apparently there are three flavors here...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

He will bless in no name and kingdom.

Sources: Here it seems that he should have blessed him with Baruch Dayan the truth, it should be.

But in fact I pondered, apparently there are three reasons here that he could not bless.

Lord, the blessing is the blessing of the truth, and basically this blessing is a blessing on the bad rumors, and here the bad rumors need to be felt in order to bless, because along with the bad rumors it is also remembered that on good rumors he blesses that we have lived or the good and the benevolent [if it is also good for others] in the Mishnah with blessings , and therefore you should note that you bless.

And also, was this blessing of the House of Israel in the destruction also said over a distant rumor that has already passed a long time since it was heard, since in a distant rumor he does not bless that we have lived if time has already passed from the time he heard as explained in the passims, and also over a garment he blesses at the time of Keni' or first wearing it as a mash In the Shoah, and concerning the fruits of the Holy Spirit, if he does not bless the first time he eats, he does not bless. So here too, since more than a year has passed since the time of the fire, and apart from that, he has seen the house being destroyed, how many times is it possible that he cannot bless with the Baruch Dayan of Truth, so it is not said that every thirty who sees the destruction can bless as we have explained because it is possible that he is from the blessing of the usual Dayan of Truth.

And the bad rumors in the Havilah of the type of Demok regarding tearing up are about the majority of the public and as an act which is in David and Jonathan as Damari there in the Gm and Ish in the rulings in the definition of things, and really it causes tangible sorrow to a person when he sees the bad rumors in the scope and magnitude of the described In the Gm and the judges there, a kind of what a person feels when such a case happens to him himself, and in any case when he calls another private person such a thing that he does not feel personal sorrow because of this, the YLA in defining the blessing of the dayan of truth in this way, that perhaps the dayan of truth on the houses of Israel in their destruction will be fixed in the form of a plurality of public , like after the destruction of a house when he saw many settlements of Israel in ruins, a kind of judgment of tearing up the cities of Judah, which is explained in Gm. Mok there and regarding that he lived us in the types of Dgm. in Berchot Net PB which does not bless for a good other than that he lived us.

And it should also be noted how many rulings are explained in the law that sees the houses of Israel in their settlement, that is, in their aggression and valor and not in the time of exile (cit. in Rashi Berchot Shem and Bibi Shem, and Yeoi' Kahach 3. Rakhad Skala 5), and there is a side in the Halacha that does not bless them at this time On the houses of Israel in their settlement (i.e., from the 18th century, there is a reference to the name of the 2nd in the opinion of Rashi), and from this there is a place to learn the opposite as well, because destruction is not the term for the destruction of one house but for a state of destruction, and there is perhaps a place to say that it is not useful that it The time of destruction in the HCMC but after a time of general destruction, as with regard to the blessing of their settlement, which is at the time of a general settlement (and it depends on whether it is said that the definition of the time of settlement is when the settlement of Israel is in their aggression and valor, or that it depends only on the building of the HCMC, and from this we learn about the destruction, etc. in 28 ibid.).

However, in the source of the law in the blessings of Noah, after Baraita Dahrua Bati Yisrael in Horbanan, the incident with Beita Darv Hana bar Hanilai is mentioned and there it is mentioned that his house was destroyed, and it seems that Damilta's house may have been destroyed privately, and so perhaps we should study the model of one house that was destroyed in general that was condemned there. However, it is not necessary, since his house was destroyed privately, since he was in exile and was not far from the time of the destruction, and they had troubles such as from Papa Bar Netzer, in the book of Rabbi Shaira Gaon, and also perhaps he was brought there in the GM only from a matter to a matter, and not because of this alone there is to bless, and also the house of Movehak in his generation may be more related to the bad rumors as we found regarding the blessing of the wise man, but this is a very limited opinion and is not the main point, but ACP 11 mainly condemned. The house of one person that was destroyed must be blessed with the blessing of the true God.

And a second reason I reflected on what I might not bless in a dignified way, because perhaps the blessing of the Dayan of truth is a special law here to be fixed on the houses of Israel that were destroyed, and here it is because it is a common house of which much and almost all of it exists, and only one house was destroyed from it, 1 Since the shared house has room to be considered as one house and the apartments as rooms in the house, we also wish to repair and bless a room in a house that was destroyed, even if it is used for an entire apartment, and even if there is no other place left for it in this house.

And a third reason I pondered on the reason why it might not be blessed, because the law of blessing dayan the truth in destruction may be a special regulation established for permanent destruction, but if the person is engaged in the construction and restoration of the place, and everything is in stages as usual with approvals and contractors' agreements, etc., it is possible that this will not be corrected.

And a fourth reason is to refer to the Shi'i of the Rabbinical Council that the houses of Israel in their settlement is a blessing only on churches, and there are judges who wrote that the custom in the 10th of the Rabbinical Law [28 in the name of the Rashal], and in the 19th century if the blessing on their destruction is In this way, and it is true that the Salachh Meshach is because only a synagogue is completely whitewashed (with no remains of its mother as the Maga C. Taks Meshach) does not belong to the blessing that blesses their destruction, but in the above-mentioned BH Gofa Shchh that is what they say About the houses of OH in their settlement, they say only about the houses of AZ and not about the rest of their houses Hazi', which he did not understand in the opinion of the RIF as the Salachh, (and also ZA about the Salchh Dai because the RIF took his words only On the Court of Appeals, after all, even a buyer of a house from Goy does not need to peel off and achmal), and the law in all of this.

And in fact, in the meantime, as long as there is no clarification for all of this, he can bless without Shem and Malchut, and according to those who think there are additional solutions for the blessings of a doubt, he can use them in Gach and Akmal.

And I'll just comment that the reasons I wrote are according to the two sides, the first reason I wrote is according to the side that is the blessing of the regular judge, and the second side I wrote is according to the side that is a private regulation here.

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

Here is surely the neighborhood of the questioner who will not be disqualified from the sukkah mitzvah if he buys an apartment without a sukkah balcony, but he will be less able to flaunt a permanent apartment in the sukkah and a continuous sitting in the sukkah, if he buys an apartment with a sukkah balcony. And it seems that an apartment with a balcony should be preferred for two reasons...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here is certainly the neighborhood of the questioner who will not be disqualified from the sukkah mitzvot if he buys an apartment without a sukkah balcony, but he will be less able to boast of a permanent apartment in the sukkah and a continuous sitting in the sukkah if he buys an apartment with a sukkah balcony.
And it seems that an apartment with a sukkah balcony should be preferred for two reasons, the first being that here it is an addition to Hidador in Dauriata and here it is an addition to Hidador in Darbanan, and that one should make an effort if in doubt Daurita is more certain than Darbanan (in Gm. Shalhi RA and Shu'a HL. RA) , and despite the fact that Meiri's name in the charges MM is also seen in these mitzvahs, and sitting excessively in the sukkah is certainly another observance of the Sukkah and investing in the Sukkah mitzvah to have a large, spacious and comfortable sukkah is in general a compilation of a mitzvah and making the sukkah every 7 regular days, and an additional point seems to be In the sukkah we note that they warned in the Mishnah to make the sukkah permanent and in the rulings it was brought up that every moment is a mitzvah and is at the foundation and root of the work, and of course it is something that a person deserves to be proud of, in regard to Hanukkah, to shine on the leaves what is lit in the window is a complete permit regarding it, even though it is a mitzvah within ten for those who can and also A mitzvah to light in a place where there is a rabbi is specified, but it is a transmitter of the owner if he lights it in the window and in its doors to let out the opinions of the scribes of our time, then it is out of the mitzvah in the first place, and we did not find that they warned the generation in Hanukkah in a place that could by this have more Nisa publications, it was found that the compilation regarding the Sukkah is the thing that is more incumbent on him.
And in any case, he should check all the other data when buying the apartment, since there are usually dozens of data when comparing apartments, and examples, such as Torah environment, synagogue environment and Torah lessons, and much more.

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

Although the apartment was built for the purpose of a residential apartment, but since the apartment was later dedicated to the purpose of a synagogue, and is also actually used for a synagogue, therefore the apartment is holy in the sanctity of a synagogue. Sources: Kang H.

Although the apartment was built for the purpose of a residential apartment, but since the apartment was later dedicated to the purpose of a synagogue, and is also actually used for a synagogue, therefore the apartment is holy in the sanctity of a synagogue.
Sources: Kang H.

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

שאלה {הנה מקומות שאינם קבועים לבית הכנסת, אבל משמשים הם בזמנים מסוימים לתפילה הציבור וכגון רחבה של עיר, פסק השו"ע (סי' קנד סעי' א) שאין בהם משום קדושת בית הכנסת. ובביה"ל (ד"ה רחבה של עיר) כתב, שאף שהמקום מזומן לתפילה ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

שאלה

{הנה מקומות שאינם קבועים לבית הכנסת, אבל משמשים הם בזמנים מסוימים לתפילה הציבור וכגון רחבה של עיר, פסק השו"ע (סי' קנד סעי' א) שאין בהם משום קדושת בית הכנסת.

ובביה"ל (ד"ה רחבה של עיר) כתב, שאף שהמקום מזומן לתפילה זו בזמנים מסוימים, מכל מקום כיון שהוא באקראי, אין בו קדושה.

אכן, המשנ"ב (סי' קנג ס"ק נב) פסק לענין מקום שאין רגילים להתפלל בו אלא בזמנים מיוחדים וכגון ברגלים וכדו', שיש במקום זה קדושה אף שהוא רק לזמנים מסוימים.
ובטעם החילוק בין רחבה של עיר שאין בו קדושה, לבית מקום שקבוע להתפלל בו בזמנים מסוימים, כתב בשו"ת חות יאיר (סי' נט) שרחבה אף על פי שמתפללים בה, מכל מקום אין עושין כן כדי לקבע אותה כמקום קדושה, אלא אדרבה מתפללים בו בתעניות כדי להרגיש טעם גלות, או כדי לבזות את עצמינו בפרהסיא כמבואר בגמרא (תענית טז, א), מה שאין כן במקום שהוחזק לתפילה, אפילו אם לא הוחזק כן אלא לזמנים מסוימים, מ"מ חשוב הוא כמקום קבוע לאותם זמנים, והרי הוא קדוש.

ובשו"ת מהר"ש ענגיל (ח"א סי' סג) ביאר החילוק באופן אחר, שברחבה אף בזמן שמתפללים בה עדיין מיועדת היא אף לשימושים אחרים, מה שאין כן במקום שהוזמן לתפילה לזמנים מסוימים, שלאותם הזמנים אין הוא מיועד לשום דבר אחר מלבד לתפילה.

וראה גם בביה"ל (ס"ב ד"ה השוכרים) שהחמיר למעשה בשכירות מקום לתפילה כשאין להם במשך אותו זמן קביעות במקום אחר, ונעשית באופן גלוי ברשות המלכות.
ולענין אהל העשוי על קברו של צדיק, כתב בשו"ת מהר"ש ענגיל (שם) שאף על פי ששופכים במקום זה שיח ותחנונים בקביעות, מ"מ אין עליו קדושת בית כנסת כלל, לפי שעיקרו עשוי לכבודו של הצדיק, ולא להתפלל בו בציבור [מתוך 'דרשו'].

והנה עוררוני, על דבר מה שלמשל בציונו של רשב"י ובציונו של מאיר בעל הנס יש מנינים במקומות קבועים, ושם בודאי שיש דין של בית כנסת, מה אומר ע"כ כבוד הרב.

אודה לרב מקרב ליבי
(נשלח מהרה"ג מ.
- נתניה)}

Answer

בס"ד

‏יום ראשון י"ז אב תשע"ו

לכבוד הרה"ג מ.
שליט"א

שלום רב

הנה ראשית כל סברת המהר"ש ענגיל היא חידוש, ומסתמא יהיו מן הפוסקים שלא יסכימו עם סברא זו, וכן ראיתי שהמהר"ש בא בתשובתו להפקיע מדברי השואל שהיה ג"כ בר אוריין עי"ש, שהוא השואל היה פשיטא ליה שיש בזה משום קדושת קבר (ועי' מור וקציעה ריש סי' קנ"ד).
ויעוי' בס' אשרי האיש ח"א שהביא בשם הגרי"ש אלישיב [מהגר"מ גרוס] דבבהכנ"ס בשדה התעופה ובכל תחנה מרכזית הו"ל בית הכנסת מכיון שקבועים להתפלל שם ואין בכונתם להפסיק להתפלל שם, אף שיש לחלק בזה לענינינו.

ומצד סברתו דהמהר"ש מיהא מתחילה היה נראה לי מלשונו הנזכר בדבריכם שכונתו לכלול כל מה שבכלל זה, וה"ה בית הכנסת קבוע שהוקם.

אכן כאשר נתבוננתי עוד בפנים התשובה של המהר"ש ענגיל, נראה מדבריו דהעיקר אזיל לפי מה שהוא העיקר מה שלכך עשוי המקום, ובציון הקבר שעוסק שם כנראה עיקר הקבר היה העיקר עשוי לכבוד הנפטר ממש, משא"כ בקבר ר"מ בעל הנס שכל צורת הבנין הוא צורת בית הכנסת ככל משפטיו וחוקותיו קשה לומר עוד שהכל נעשה רק לכבוד המת ותשמיש הבית הכנסת הוא תשמיש עראי, ואף אם מה שקבעו המקום שם בית הכנסת הוא גם לכבוד הנפטר אבל אין כבוד בשר ודם עדיף מכבוד המקום שיאמרו שעיקר המקום הוא לכבוד המת ח"ו.

וז"ל המהר"ש ענגיל שם, א״כ הכ״נ כיון דבאמת עיקר החדר עשוי לכבוד הרה״צ הנפטר ובאמת קיי״ל בש״ע יו״ד סי׳ שס"ח דבה״ק אין קורין ושונין שם ועי׳ בר״י פ״ג מברכות וברא״ש שם, ורק הא דמתירין שם להתפלל על קבר הצדיק לפי שעיקר איסור משום לועג לרש, והכא שעושין בזה כבוד להמת ל״ש לועג לרש אבל עכ״פ עיקר קביעות במת זה אינו רק לכבוד אבל לא להתפלל בו בציבור א״כ בודאי דאין עליו שם קדושה עי״ז כמה שמתפללין בו על קבר הרה׳׳צ ודמי לרחובה דאין כו משום קדושה כיון דעיקרו אינו עומד לתשמיש קדושה א״כ פשיטא דלית בזה משום איסור נתיצה דבהכ״נ וז״ב ופשוט עכ"ל.

והנה איתא עוד (בירושלמי שקלים פרק ב' הלכה ה'), דאין בונין נפש [ציון ומצבה] על קברות הצדיקים לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, משום שדבריהן הן זכרונן, וכן הוא לשון זה ברמב"ם הל' אבל, והצדיקים אין בונים להם נפש על קברותיהם שדבריהם הם זכרונם, ולא יפנה אדם לבקר בבית הקברות עכ"ל.
והיינו שעיקר הענין לשעבר היה משום זכרון, ולכך היו עושין הנפשות, משא"כ היום מוכחא מילתא שהוא לבית תפילה, והרבה יעידו שלא באו לשם אלא כדי להתפלל להקב"ה לזכות לרפאות חולים וכו' בזכות הצדיק, א"כ היום אינו כך במקומות כאלו.

לכך נראה לענ"ד שקשה להקל בזה, אבל אין דרכי להכריע במקום שאין בידי ראיה ברורה כידוע, ולכן אם מ"מ מורה הוראה מוסמך יקל בזה תוכלו לסמוך עליו.

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