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
