If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it. Sources: Ya'oi in the 12th century, C. Rasag SKKA, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take Israel out by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it.

Sources: Yeavi' in the 20th century, C. Rasg Skaka, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take out Israel by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no mission to a gentile, and it is explained to me that this problem is not wrong in the fact that the foreigner is lit, and therefore Israel is not a Torah observant And a mitzvah, since it is not exceeded by the laws of mission, can be used as a messenger to light the Shabbat candles (and 20s if there is an obligation on him), and 20s for the practices there that can Efi bless the lighting of a candle by a Gentile who fulfills a complete mitzvah in this.

And we will see further from the fact that the main obligation to light the candle is because of peace in the home, so for this matter the obligation is the same for a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot as for a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot.

Although I have seen those who have commented that there is another problem in getting out of the obligation to light a candle by someone who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot if she does not mean a mitzvah at all but something completely different, (and it is true that those who believe that by a Gentile they go out in a peshita also go out in this), and apparently this discussion also belongs For those who believe that the Darbanan mitzvos do not require an intention (and I extended this in another answer), a model for their KIL method (and there is a dispute about this in the B.I. To doubt that it is considered that he intends not to go out of duty, and in any case it is necessary to discuss whether it is appropriate to exclude others according to such a party and whether it is at all appropriate to appoint a mission in such a way, and I. C. Reto Sabv that there is no interest in an Amen after Epicurus because his intention is not for heaven, 2 and in the Bible there that if he heard the whole blessing, he answers Amen, but the matter of going out of my duty is a bit more problematic, and each one needs to check what he believes, and the AGM, O.H.B.C. That the mother has an affinity for religion and wants to be good, but does not understand and thinks that what she does is enough (and also feels satisfaction and a good feeling in what she does, because without that there is another problem. Those who believe that the mitzvah of Darbanan AA to leave without intention has a problem with leaving someone who does something that is not for the mitzvah At all), it turns out that there is no need to fear more than that, and everything depends on the matter.

And with regard to Kiddush, it is a bit more problematic to issue Yadah Kiddush on the wine and even on the portion from a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot.

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

התשובה בזה שבאופן כללי אינו צריך למסור את היין לשומר מחמת שיש כאן כמה דברים לטיבותא בזה, ואחד מהטעמים הוא משום שיש כאן ישראלים והגוי ירא לנסך (ויעוי' בש"ך סי' קיח סקל"ג לענין חלב), ואולי בהמשך נרחיב עוד בנימוקים בזה.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

התשובה בזה שבאופן כללי אינו צריך למסור את היין לשומר מחמת שיש כאן כמה דברים לטיבותא בזה, ואחד מהטעמים הוא משום שיש כאן ישראלים והגוי ירא לנסך (ויעוי' בש"ך סי' קיח סקל"ג לענין חלב), ואולי בהמשך נרחיב עוד בנימוקים בזה.

However, if according to the matter it seems that the gentile is not afraid to touch the wine, such as the wine is placed on the table and it looks as if the person who takes from it is not perceived as a thief, and in particular if the gentile is not familiar with the nature of Israel's laws and does not know that he will be strictly observed if he touches the wine, (in which there is no mirat Yaoi' in the glossary In Fatash C. Kotto SKV in the name of Hachamat Adam Klal Sez S. D. A.S.), and if the wine is standing in a place or at a time when the waiters have the power and authority to remove it from there by virtue of their position, in all Kah'at it seems there is a reason to require a guard or to place the The bottle in such a way that whoever approaches it is perceived as a thief, such as hanging it in a bag in the wardrobe, then there is no need for a guard.

Sources:

לענין אם אינו נתפס עליו כגנב מבואר ברמ"א סי' קכח ס"ד דבמקום שיש לחוש שנגעו לשתות ממנו הוא אסור (ועי"ש גם בשו"ע ס"ה), ובמקום הפסד כ' הש"ך סקי"ג שיש להתיר בדיעבד.

לענין הנידון אם היתר נכנס ויוצא הוא לכתחילה או בדיעבד ברמ"א סי' קכט ס"א מבואר שהוא רק בדיעבד (ועי' גם סי' קכח ס"א), אולם בגמ' חולין ג ע"א מבואר דההיתר הוא גם לכתחילה, וכ' הש"ך סי' קיח סקל"ב דבנכנס ויוצא לזמן מועט ההיתר הוא אפי' לכתחילה, ומש"כ הרמ"א שמותר רק בדיעבד הוא באופן ששהה זמן רב ולא הודיע לגוי שדעתו לשהות (בתנאים המבוארים בסי' קכט שם), שבאופן זה מותר כמבואר בפוסקים אבל רק בדיעבד.

לענין מקום שרבים מצויין אין חשש יין נסך שירא לנסך כמבואר בשו"ע סי' קכט ס"ד ועי"ש ביד אפרים, אבל בענין שהגוי אינו נתפס עליו כגנב (כגון שיכול לטעון שהיין הוא ציבורי), ויש לחוש שמא ישתה שיש לו הנאה מזה בזה אפי' להש"ך שם סקי"ד בדעת הרמ"א ג"כ אסור (עכ"פ במקום שאינו הפסד מרובה עי' שם סי' קכח סקי"ג), וכ"ש לפמש"כ הט"ז בסי' קכט שם סק"ט דכל שהמגע קרוב לודאי יש לחוש אפי' במקום רבים אפי' בלא הנאה כלל.

ולענין אם היין בכוס פתוח אם יהיה מותר בדיעבד באופן שהגוי נתפס עליו כגנב, בזה יהיה תלוי במחלוקת הש"ך והט"ז (ובעובדא שהביא היד אפרים שם בשם שו"ת בית יהודה משמע שתפס לאסור אם אין החבית פקוקה כהט"ז), ולבני ספרד יהיה ודאי אסור כיון שהמחבר אינו מקיל בנתפס עליו כגנב אם אינה פקוקה עי"ש בסי' קכט בשו"ע וש"ך.

באופן שאין נתפס כגנב יש לשון בשו"ע ס"ס קכח שהאופן שנאסר הוא אם נמצא גוי בין החביות אבל עצם עו"ש גוים משמע שם שאינו אוסר במקום רבים, וגם בסי' קכט ס"ד משמע דמיירי המחבר שהיה גוי עם החביות, וא"כ יש מקום לדון שמה שהגוי אוסר היין אם אין נתפס כגנב הוא רק באופן שיש גוי עם היין ממש, ויל"ע בזה.

באופן שנתפס כגנב שמותר אין מפורש בשו"ע אם ההיתר הוא לכתחילה או בדיעבד, ופשטות לשון התוס' (על הסוגי' בע"ז ע ע"ב והוא נדפס בדף ע ע"א סוף דיבור ראשון) והפוסקים (עי' בית אפרים שם) דמיירי בדיעבד, ובפרט דפשטות הרמ"א ריש סי' קכט שמגביל את הנחת יין עם גוי רק בדיעבד מיירי על הדברים שנתבארו בסעיפים שם, ולא הותר לכתחילה אלא באופן שהזכיר הש"ך בסי' קכח סקל"ב של יוצא ונכנס בלא שהות שזה לא נזכר בסעיפים שם בריש סי' קכח.

 

לענין מה שאין יין גוי נאסר במקום רבים עכ"פ בפקוקה ולכל מר כדאית ליה, דבשו"ע סי' קכט ס"ד אי' שהוא אפי' אם הרבים הם גוים דגם בזה יש מירתת, אולם יעוי' בסי' קלא ס"א לגבי מטהר יינו של גוי דמשמע שם שאין מירתת כלל במקום שיש רק גוים, ואולי לגבי סי' קכט באופן המבואר בסי' קלא שמועיל גם בגוים, ולא משמע כן, ויש לומר דרק במטהר יינו של גוי חמור יותר כמו שמצינו שגם חותם בתוך חותם לא מועיל בכה"ג גם באופן שמועיל ביין של ישראל.

והואיל דאתאן לכל זה, נעיר עוד הערה קצרה, לגבי הגבהת יין לחוד אם אוסר בסי' קכט משמע בכ"מ שאינו אוסר, וכ"כ בסי' קכד סי"ח, אולם יעוי' שם בט"ז סי"ז סקט"ו דמשמע דלהרמ"א אסור ולכאורה כ"ש להמחבר בסי"ז שמחמיר יותר מהרמ"א עי"ש, והט"ז עצמו הקיל בזה, וכן במחבר סי' קלב ס"ב מבואר לכאורה שאוסר הגבהה,והרמ"א שם אמנם לא חלק להדיא על המחבר אבל מתוך דבריו משמע שלא החמיר בהגבה עי"ש בדבריו, וצ"ע בכל זה.

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

I entered a reputable store that, due to the savings in the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc.,...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I went into a respectable store that, due to the savings on the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc., etc. It is possible for a dunam to have a right that according to what they say they do everything legally and do not need an overseer at all.

But still since it was recently published about serious obstacles that happened in places where there is no kosher supervisor, therefore it would be better if there was public awareness of how to treat a store where all products are under the supervision of the Kosher.

It should be noted that sometimes it is indeed impossible to point out a prohibition that is clear on the part of Gadri Halacha to buy there, if the seller observes the Torah and mitzvot (and the Shu'a and Rama'a find that the main point of the law is relaxed even in matters more than that, cf. C. Kitt SB and SG and 37, and EE in the words of the Shu'a and Rama concerning the law of food that is written kosher, as well as the law of letters in Hebrew where no Gentiles know how to write), but in reality there are many obstacles in such places, especially today that the food industry is industrial and includes the use of many workers and supplies .

And so as long as you don't know the seller personally, he is God-fearing and knows Halacha and knows what he is doing, what can certainly be said is that it is better to buy in a supervised place.
(And we noted in the Rama that things that were held to be problematic do not rely on the holdings, and also in the Rama in Baha 3:17 72, and Yaoi' of the Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of the slaughters and brought the 22).

Below I will mention some of the obstacles that can be found in such a place:
A.
The discharge falls into the pulp
When you prepare a pulp, you often oblige yourself to secrete challah without knowing it, and besides that, for example, sometimes you secrete challah from a pulp because of doubt, and after that another doubt is created, such as when you join a basket between two pulps from which each of them was secreted separately when it was in a doubtful proportion, and now there is a certain proportion between the two, And from the judgment one has to set aside challah again, and it is possible to fail in this due to lack of knowledge.

B.
Unrolling and immersing the dishes
There is no Bedaz inspection on the dishes, even in stores that write that all the products are under the inspection of the Bedz, and not on the way in which they are immersed and disgusted, and as I mentioned in one of the adjacent answers, there is a halachic problem buying from a seller who does not adhere to legal immersion and immersion (even if he is not his son).

And of course there are sometimes also dishes that are destroyed to such an extent that they prohibit cooking in them, and those who deal with the kitchen and cooking without knowing the Halacha may fail.

third.
There are products that do not require kosher
There are products that are practiced that do not require kosher, such as sugar and coffee, and it is possible that you at home are also careful about these products to buy only kosher, but it is possible that the seller is not careful about this, that is, it is not impossible that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, this statement does not mean products that do not need kosher (in the opinion of the seller), as long as it is not stated otherwise (and maybe even if we ask the seller he will answer that "everyone does not follow this").

d.
Worm inspection
There are types of foods that claim to test for worms as explained in the Shoah in the Book of Worms, and even on behalf of kosher it says to test, and it is a problem to use products that have not been legally tested, even if the products are under the supervision of the Bedz.

God.
Fish inspection
On behalf of the BDS (up to the last time I was updated), fish sold with skin are required to be tested at home, to check that they have scales, so even if all the products are under the supervision of the BDS, it still does not mean that the seller has done the inspection legally.

Also, on behalf of the Bedz Rabbi Landa, the official instruction on the salmon fish is that the skin is problematic and requires care at home, so even if the seller bought all the products with good care, it is still impossible to know if he took care of the skin properly.

and.
Blood clotting in poultry
The problem of blood clotting in poultry is still not eliminated by kosher.
Although I don't know even when there is kosher on the restaurant if the supervisor oversees it.

And the same with regard to the condemnation of eggs that do not have kosher marks (kad and had) those who are careful about this at home and buy ready-made challah at the store, obviously the supervisor of the mafia is not careful about this, but in such a case where there are some doubts here it is easier (i.e. by way of answer) What brought in this, and there are also instructions from our time arbitrators in this).

G.
Akaum cooking
Even if all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, it still does not guarantee that there is no illegal cooking, and as we know, a person forgot that hot seed and Ishmael is cheaper, and in any case it is found in factories that use them as laborers, when significant manpower is needed, and of course in bakeries and restaurants they are observed working, and the big problem It's not the regular use of them, dela mashui inish nafshaya sharia, but the bigger problem is all kinds of voices that are not agreed that the seller can make it easier for himself (or make it easier for the attribution of the workers in the places that the arbitrators have taken that they don't have enough attribution) and when there is a kosher who oversees it, he is more responsible.

H.
Annihilated cooking
In this regard, not all of the koshers are careful not to let the mashomed cook, but in places where "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" there is certainly no guarantee that they are careful about this.

ninth.
Meat in milk
Even in places that promise that "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" which can legally oblige them if they are found to be liars, but they do not promise not to cook meat products with milk, or meat products in milk vessels and vice versa (and that there is no promise that they do not cook fish with meat or fish with milk for those who are strict about it).

Likewise, there are also laws which products are allowed to be placed next to other products, and there are laws of cancellation and there is no cancellation, and the taste is not void, and all these things are not sufficient for those who are not knowledgeable in Halacha.

And likewise, sometimes there is a meat/dairy din for the food, and the seller will not necessarily indicate this because in his opinion the food is not considered meat, or he does not see the need to indicate this, and when there is no supervision I went to the store it is impossible to know about all of this.

J.
A touch of wine
Even in places where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there can be a person who does not observe Shabbat who touches the wine, and there are ways that the wine is prohibited even when it is mixed in a stew as explained in the Shoah, and in the case of the Shabbos if he touched the wine before entering the stew, and a Shabbat person who touches the wine is very problematic.

11
seventh
Even in a store where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there is still no guarantee that they do not sell products that have the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that those who are strict about certain things such as foreign crops or northern and southern prairies or cultivated on the seventh (and harvested on the eighth) should not expect to have information about this, burden In most cases, in kosher, things are monitored and the necessary information is provided to the buyer of the product.

12.
negligence at work
Even if the seller's intention is pure that all the products will be under the supervision of the Bedz, if he brings in chefs (cooks) who are not irash and gives them the products to prepare ready-made dishes from it, if there is no supervision and supervision as usual, there is still no guarantee that they will not introduce other substances, and they touch the matter It turns out tastier so that they will continue to use their service, and even if according to Halacha it is sometimes allowed because he is a craftsman or because he is in the House of Israel, and there are many differences of opinion about this (Vai'oi' in S. Kich s. ), mm It is certainly better to buy from a place where there is supervision, since it is known that there are obstacles in this (as the aforementioned RMA said).

13.
Sending meat and the like without a seal
There are foods that must not be sent with goy or moshmood without a seal or two seals such as meat, eg in S. Kih, and there are ways that it is prohibited even in retrospect, and it is possible to fail in this even if all the principle products come from the supervision of the Bedz.

Hand.
Suspect to eat normal kosher
Even if the seller is obvious to the eye as a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot, mm if he also eats things that are rabbinically kosher known as regular kosher, or other koshers that according to Din AA can be trusted, and when he arrives at the place and is served dishes with these koshers, he eats them, And these koshers are held as kosher by him without fear, in any case his presumption of kosher must be discussed with the Didan, i.e. even if he says that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, since in his opinion everything is considered kosher Galat, in any case it is not so simple that he has a presumption of kosher on it (I.C. Kih Sof Sach and I' further C. Kit Sach, and IA in the words of the Shu'a regarding the fact that there is no loyalty in the rapists about their wine since they themselves are not careful, and it should be discussed whether it is appropriate to learn from this), in particular if it is a restaurant that naturally It involves many challenges and requires all kinds of materials that can sometimes be easily obtained from all kinds of places, and there are many permit instructions that a person can order for himself when he knows that without this permit order he will not be able to bring food tomorrow to his regular and non-regular customers, and everything that is needed is not always readily available in good kosher.

Tu.

Relying on the loyalty of women and minors in Halacha
It is necessary to add a dish of problems in the trust of a woman and a minor in certain cases as explained in the Shoah and the Rama'a SS C. 133 SG and SD and it is necessary to note that all this is strictly adhered to.
By the way, I quoted the Rama's words, where it should be noted a model of loyalty of people who do not follow the grammar of the Halacha. As for the grammar of the Halacha, it is discussed on its own and Ish.

16
Unseasoned chicken or meat
Even if you buy poultry and meat under the supervision of the Badz, but if you buy them from the Badz when they have not yet been salted and roasted and the seller prepares them himself (which can be profitable for those who buy in quantities), there can be problems with salting that prohibit the meat even in retrospect, such as if stock drips on the meat in ways Some, either blood dripped from the outside during roasting, or it stayed for a few days without salting, and there are many legal details in this.

17.
Leaven on which Passover passed
It is possible that a product is perfectly kosher in the Badatz kosher, but after Pesach it will be forbidden in pleasure, if they did not sell chametz, and the seller did not commit except that the products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and if he is not a Yarash (and you do not know him) lest he think that A. to come at him with claims, also if you are careful not to trust all the sales that are practiced due to various concerns, and even if the seller is an expert, how can you trust him as long as you don't know that he is meticulous, (and this also does not state the law of oxygen of transgressors, etc., since this is a complete permit for him), although for this reason one can withdraw from the hodai, and if it is a dish that only provides a mixture of chametz, it must be sold to a Gentile, it is very easy, as there are three sides to this, to allow it, and there is only doubt as to whether it is chametz that is not sold at all (without additional sides of a mixture and of that sold to a gentile in a Didan sale) there is a side in the rulings that it is permissible, although it should be noted that there are also those who are careful in the case of a chametz mixture that is sold as above.

Summary of things
Some of the things from the legal point of view are not required to be worried about, but since in the reality of a store there is no supervisor there and you don't know the seller and the employees if they are God-fearing and punctual and knowledgeable in the Halacha, it is very possible that mistakes can be made, and therefore it is certainly possible to say that it is recommended in terms of kosher to buy at the more elegant place.

It should be noted that without a doubt there are restaurants of kosher and Jewish Jewish people who are more strict about lightening than other shops with kosher supervision, but I did not come here in this article but to offer a suggestion of things and concerns that may exist in some shops of this type.

All of the above does not exempt the person who prepares food alone at home from finding out all the laws concerning it, because just as in a restaurant one can fail in all these obstacles, so does the person who prepares food at home.

And we will end with the words of the Shoah (regarding Gentile artisan apothecaries' tools if there is a fear of them breaking the prohibition) and the soul will feel that these words lead to purity and cleanliness.

!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

In Klai Ilan there is no prohibition even to eat it and to look at the picture, and it is true that the Chazoa preferred not to eat it, and this is supported by the Ramban on the Torah that the hybrid is an abominable thing before God, but in fact it is allowed to eat it, and so they did with all kinds of fruits that are hybrid like Kiwi...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In Klai Ilan there is no prohibition even to eat it and to look at the picture, and it is true that the Chazoa preferred not to eat it, and this is supported by the Ramban on the Torah that the hybrid is an abominable thing before God, but in fact it is allowed to eat it, and so they did with all kinds of fruits that are hybrid like Kiwi and apricot and no one refrained from eating them.

But the vineyards, which are prohibited for pleasure, are included in the general discussion of whether it is permissible to take and see pictures of prohibitions of pleasure, such as pictures of Hanukkah candles in the first half hour, as well as a picture of wine produced by a Gentile whose sin is wine, as well as a picture of the place of the temple and even the Western Wall that is mentioned in the inscriptions And in the shekels of what is done as the Toss in Kiddoshin, in fact in all of this we enter into this matter.

And as I brought up in the Shu'at with Segulah C. Ez, that there is a dispute between the Garash and Azner and the Garhak, regarding the first half hour of Hanukkah candles.
And it seems that Sugyen Dalma and the prevailing custom are not to make it worse at all.

And on the other hand, since it has already been photographed, it should not be made worse at all, since pleasure is not prohibited, such as someone who tells his friend that so-and-so is wrong, drank wine and he has any pleasure from it, it is not prohibited, and Afi' Damri' in Gm' in Holin and in Gitin, in Davmashtarshi Lia, considers pleasure but does not see a picture that only He reveals to him that there was wine Nesech, which is not to be felt at all, but to take a picture that at the time enjoyed looking at the body of the prohibition in such a way that it is obvious that he enjoyed it, it is like a sound and a sight and a smell that is forbidden to spurn like Damari' on Passovers, and here it is neither possible nor intentional since the goal here is to enjoy the body of the prohibition, and at least because What is done by the device is the decision of the Chazoa that a device is considered an act by the device as Mahrisha Dharamban taught, therefore a soulful person will be strict not to take pictures and if there is a picture that has been taken there is no need to be afraid.
And regarding the viewing of the picture, it should be added that you should not become more serious when viewing the picture of Aisanari Ha'anha (which is the painting of the Isv'an in Alma by a machine), more than substitutes for the prohibitions of pleasure and increases the prohibitions of pleasure in places that were not decreed, cf.
And likewise, only the ZA photographer and other prohibited photographers were banned, but the one who took a photo of wine, and by this we mean a YAN other than his employee, we have not heard that the photographer would be banned by this, even though there is some party here that caused pleasure that was turned around by the ISAAN.
  And AAG Dkaima Len regarding a Fat that was baked in the trees of a ban, which is forbidden because there is praise of trees in the Fat, mm there is a realistic pleasure that is visible to the eye through an action that the trees of the ban worked, but here the image is only a copy of a situation that may have been made in the ban of this copying, But there is no way to prohibit such a thing.
However, regarding photos taken on Shabbat, the Gersha and the Grisha ordered that they are prohibited after Shabbat, and so on in a second thread regarding a recording that was recorded on Shabbat, but it is possible that the Shabbat deed should be divided into degbi. that the prohibition of pleasure is the object and not the pleasure of a prohibited act, Dadarba from a carn and kiddish in their blood is sanctified, and the second thread wrote that the prohibition of the act of Shabbat is not a fence of the prohibition of pleasure but a prohibition of use and apparently is not agreed upon by the OT SKD), and I.A. in this.

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

The Mishnav was very strict about this and because of the differences of law which wrote that daurita is forbidden and malakot Darbanan only in place of enmity, the PMG was satisfied with this, and without enmity it is certainly not allowed, since it can evade and say that the permission to violate Shabbat is only for the needs of those who observe Shabbat. However, some of the rulers of our times took ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The Mishnav was very strict about this, and because of the differences of law that wrote that daurita is forbidden and crafts are prohibited only in the place of enmity, the PMG was satisfied with this, and without enmity it is certainly forbidden, since it can evade and say that the permission to violate Shabbat is only for the purpose of those who observe Shabbat.
However, some of the decision-makers of our time have taken the view that this leadership could lead to the danger of lives from harassment, although it is obligatory to avoid a gentile doctor doing this and as a doctor not to do daurieta crafts, but if there is no choice, allow it.

Sources: Mishnav Shel, 8, Agam Och 4d At, and Ha Kaha, the Gershza in keeping Shabbat as the law of M, Mev, Menchat Yitzchak Ha Neg and Chag 20, and one must be satisfied if also The Mishnav admits that the situation has changed, and it should be noted that most of the words of the arbitrators of our time were said in the years closer to the Holocaust than today, but if he has a right to dodge in any case, one should dodge, such as explaining to them that it is a religious matter that was only allowed in order to continue the possibility of the patient's Shabbat observance, and that a doctor Someone else will be able to treat the gentile patient, and of course not in a way that the gentile's life depends only on the Jewish doctor.

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

It is a pashita that you should not talk to him about matters of opinion, morals, religion, etc., since his values do not correspond to the values of the Torah, and anyone who might be tempted to ask him questions illegally and unnecessarily and waste his time or provoke an addiction should not be used...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is a pashita that you should not talk to him about matters of opinion, morality, religion, etc., since his values do not correspond to the values of the Torah, and anyone who might be tempted to ask him questions illegally and unnecessarily and waste his time or provoke an addiction should not use this software, and regarding whether there is permission to ask The same questions instead of the need, it must be discussed and its boundaries, that the things have not yet been clarified in the Midrash of all the need, and each one will ask his Rabbis.

Sources: In order for us to properly understand the problems of artificial intelligence, it is important that we be precise and truthful, and not exaggerate things either here or there, even if it is for a noble purpose.
(And below we will refer to the known software in this field in the usual version and model, without going into all kinds of software and models of the software by their names, each of which is discussed separately).

Even though the content received from the software is mostly correct and useful, and sometimes can save certain services, and even though the company filters the content a lot, and the filtering of the content received in it is far beyond the content that can be accessed via the Internet, and even though there should be no disrespect to the holy people of Israel and Torah keepers in the software, according to standards The official and practical software, with all this, it is possible to point out two problems that should come with the use of this software.

The more noticeable problem is the addiction to it and the loss of time, especially for those who try to make their Torah their art and try not to pass the time in idle chatter, this software can interfere with the utilization of time and the loss of focus in progressing in the merits of the Torah and reverence.

The second problem is the familiarity with values that appear in content produced by those who are not Torah and Mitzvo observant, on subjects where the ruling of the Torah is known to us, and the software says otherwise, that of course their scale of values is very different from the scale of values of the Torah, and when you get too close to hear opinions regularly and continuously, the may impart a view and a worldview that is not of the Torah, and in particular young people whose worldview has not yet been shaped but is now being shaped over time.

And here, on the part of the legal details, there is a law forbidding the reading of the outer books (Sanhedrin 3) and they are books that contain words against the sages (Ref and Rash and Ramah in the Sanhedrin 14 and more), and even books of clowns [in which there is a loss of time and the thought] it is forbidden to read (Gm. Ibid., VE. Rashi Shabbat Kemet 11 and Shu'a HL. Shabbat), and M.M. Ben Sira is permitted at random (NI), [and we have already discussed whether it is permitted only in Sefer Ben Sira or in any book that does not contain heresy and does not have any benefit in it, and it is possible that one who feels the weakness of the soul is allowed randomly in any book that does not have any benefit in it if it is necessary for the health of his soul, and as is known from the Hazu'a about a small number of conversation [cit. Avot POV], and some have ordered to allow music on the sofa" p. when necessary for the health of the soul), and the books of Chamat Khol of the nations of the world are allowed to be read when necessary (AGM, and also proven in KCM and A. Shu'a ibid.).

And for our case, the apparent result of this is as follows, to correspond with the artificial intelligence in matters of opinion and outlook and morals is not to be done (and everything depends on the matter), and to correspond in matters of the wisdom of the world when there is a need is permitted, and to correspond for the sake of idle chatter is prohibited, unless one does so randomly for the sake of the health of the mind that there should be room to discuss it .
That was what it was supposed to say.

But it must be discussed on the one hand if it is said that it is something close to the prohibition that the Hazu'a ordered and brought by the Gerhag, and further that it is forbidden even without a decree, and according to this 20 Hageri Boyar explains the reason for banning the internet in our time, and as the 17th the Shahal ordered that the ban on the internet in our time It is lawfully to pass over the opening of the exit [I. 17 17], which is close to the prohibition, (although it means in the Gm's name that it is not a complete prohibition instead of the necessity, but according to the interpretation of the Hazu'a a fence is close to the prohibition It is more severe and forbidden, if necessary), so the scope of the permission to correspond with the artificial intelligence must be discussed if necessary, if it is possible to say yes if it is close to prohibition.

And we need a fence, what is the fence of close to the prohibition, for this reason we did not find that it was forbidden to talk to the gentile, except for an argument with Epicurus Yisrael Damari' 26 Dafker Tapi [Sanhedrin 16 12], and on the other hand, multiple conversations with the woman mean that this should not be done in Pek Davot , and this is also not explained that there is a barrier of prohibition from the law, except that it is a way of breaking in if he accustoms himself to unnecessary conversation one or more times, and on the other hand I say that it is forbidden to look at the image of an evil person [cit. Q. The first ones 217 BCM, and on the other hand they warned not to speak Efi' with AH [Sanhedrin Nev 12], and here is to insert a book of Minot into his house E. in RAZAL BCM Dasur [Psikta Rabati and Kehalat Rabba], but There is a law of burning the book [and p. Shabbat Katz], and on the other hand putting it into a computer is not clear, and I heard on behalf of the Gramm Karp that if he enters a file of such a book into his computer (such as if he received a large collection of book files that were not filtered) that he does not open it, he does not It is prohibited, so it is impossible to know the clear fence in this.

And on the one hand here it is much easier than talking to a Gentile because there is an uncompromising filtering of the software that severely limits us from conveying to us what the Gentile says in his real life (such as the purity of the language and the purity of the morals and Milen Daziva), and yet those who use the software itself are also blocked and apart from this Filtering is more important than software, and on the other hand it is more severe than talking to a foreigner, since here the person navigates himself and talks to himself in front of software and there is no self-blocking of discomfort to pry into all kinds of topics and be dragged into a long conversation.

Therefore, if it were to be drawn and if we assume that this was held (of course only for those who recognize themselves that this is the case) that there is nothing here that provokes to engage in matters of morals and opinions, then it would not be appropriate to say that there is a prohibition to use this software as a matter of law instead of the need for intelligent matters on an irregular basis, but it is addicting To use it unnecessarily, for which there is a prohibition as in the above-mentioned Sanhedrin K.A.B., and it is necessary to know whether, since there are people who are addicted to it, everyone will be prohibited anyway, as the judges have taken regarding unfiltered internet.
However, all that is being discussed here is only if the aforementioned software is indeed blocked and filtered from inappropriate things, and if it is not blocked from these things, in which software or version will the law change.

Recently, a halachic ruling was published by several world leaders, some of whom are teachers and gentlemen, that this software should not be used at all, so I tried not to use any exaggeration in my words, and it turns out that it will take some time until the extent of the effect and damage of the thing becomes clear. to keep it away, until the matter has received a clear direction and an agreed upon approach, and even in this, simple people like me are not able to predict in advance what the scope of the matter will be, so everyone will ask their friends and ask a smart question.

Addition after time

Recently it became clear that the software is not completely blocked from prohibited uses, so some things must be discussed in the answer again.

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

There is a parent who is allowed, and who wants to get out of all opinions, avoids it in the first place, even if it is used on a regular basis or in a wet. "Cooking as a chamesh in the Chazu'a), and Ish that the Shachak ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is a parent who is allowed, and who wants to get out all the opinions will avoid it in the first place, even if it is used regularly or wet.

Sources: See Yod Tza, 2 at length in the Rama and the discussion of the laws and practices regarding Gentile vessels or vessels that have been consumed in broth (and the definition of the concern here is by cooking as a chamesh in the Chazu'a), and because the Shachach aggravates aq F in the kvea and there are those who have made it more difficult for us to blach, but for our case, Rabbi Dinar Habit brought in his kosher p. Katz in the name of Garnak to make it easy and the closing of the tongue also means blah and in the kvea Iash, and he probably added a side of Kola who is in doubt about these tools.

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

If it is about graphics and the like that are paid according to the work and it is not work that is clearly for a Jew, it is allowed. If it is a question of payment by working time, you should contact a teacher, because the answer may vary according to the details of the case. Sent using the virtual-mail system (https://email36.com/he)

If it is about graphics and the like that are paid according to the work and it is not work that is clearly for a Jew, it is allowed.
If it is a question of payment by working time, you should contact a teacher, because the answer may vary according to the details of the case.

Sent using the virtual-mail system (https://email36.
com/he)

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