I don't fall within the scope of medicine because I'm not well versed in the field, but for the very fact that it's being condemned if it's a patient with a serious illness who is agreed upon by all the experts that in the condition he's in he puts those present in real and imminent danger of contracting the disease, so he must not be in the place where he is...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I do not come within the scope of medicine because I am not well versed in the field, but for the very thing being condemned if it is a patient with a serious illness who is agreed upon by all the experts that in the condition he is in he puts those present in real and imminent danger of contracting the disease, therefore he must not be in a place where he infects them, and as he wrote in the book Chassidim (C. Tareg) You shall not put an obstacle before a blind person (Leviticus 19:19), that a person who is afflicted with boils should not bathe with another Jew, but they will inform us that it is said (ibid. 18) and it is written (ibid. 16) 20, and Yaoi' in the case that is more similar to our case in the words of writers C. L. of the Greca.

And of course everything depends on the matter, because even the medical people don't tell him (in most cases) to be in complete isolation and not to go buy food for himself and not to go to vacate the throne house where another person will enter after him.

[And the book Hasidim spoke mainly about the very real danger of washing together, even though there is such a danger sometimes even in less than that, as explained in the inscriptions on page 17, I did not eat bai'i, which is from a boa, etc. Yod C. Katz, and there is no room here to extend that the Sages knew that there is danger even in getting any closer to a sick person, and from the Book of Chassidim comes a prohibition mainly for those who infect their friend with a more real and tangible danger such as bathing with their friend].

But they tell him to do according to the medical instructions, such as with a mask or distance or a break from a partition, etc. according to what is accepted in the medical world to act according to the rules of caution when necessary things are needed.

And the doctors don't recognize prayer as necessary, and the doctor doesn't care if the patient doesn't pray at all, of course, they shouldn't treat prayer the way they treat it, nor the thoughts of your thoughts, because prayer in public is just as necessary as other necessary things, and therefore one should do as the case may be Such as wearing a mask or praying in a nearby room subject to what they would say to do in another necessary need (depending on the matter), and one must act subject to a medical investigation of the actual situation and then ask a wise question.

And in the event that the doctor says that even in a similar and other necessary need one must not go to a public place with coverings and hijabs, and this is agreed upon by all doctors and medicine that there is a real danger in this (and not just fences and caveats who decided in their opinion that this is a personal matter, what is the definition of caveats that are accepted in the world of medicine in matters of Halacha), There is no such thing as a Jew who is forbidden to come to prayer in public, and in any case it is not appropriate to argue about it, for just as it is a commandment to say something that is heard, so it is a commandment not to say anything that is not heard, and even if it is in your power to remove him from the synagogue, he will go to another synagogue, and you have only gained a Jew's face whitened because of you, and also You bought yourself a new hater without money, but what did you gain from it, you should have quietly moved to another synagogue if you really care about it, and of course the one who knows how to prove it can tell us in Sana'a and in a soft language that it is better for him to stay at home and that this is God's will for him at the moment, and all according to the matter .

And from the point of view of proper and proper caution, even if there is an unclear fear that others will be infected by it, it is proper to stay away and be careful as explained in many places , Rama Yud C. Katz SA], and I have seen several times people of action who did not feel good and made sure to wear a mask even long after this leadership had passed from the world from the general public and it was not according to their honor to behave like that mm put their honor for the sake of the common good .

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!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: 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

If it is an act of cauldron, i.e. types of food that are not blessed by the giver, even if he has established his feast, then even in retrospect, he is not exempt from his obligation if the giver blessed, but if it is a mouthful that follows in the Kesnin, such as Rogelach and waffles (which at most are doubtful enough for the giver...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it is an act of cauldron, i.e. types of food that are not blessed by the giver, even if he has established his feast, then even in retrospect, he is not exempt from his obligation if the giver blessed, but if it is a mouthful that follows in the kasnin, such as rogelach and waffles (which at most are doubtful, the giver had enough and achmal, and then at the very least the giver went out , but they are certainly not a cauldron's act) In retrospect, it came out to many arbitrators and doubtless blessings to ease.

And Mm in such a way that he intended to set a feast and blessed the Rogelach with food, and immediately regretted it and decided to eat a little, that's what it must have been, even to begin with.

Sources: If it is an act of cauldron, etc., 22 111 (Kulel Noah 91) and Zal, he erred and blessed the bread, the creator of various kinds of food, it came out.
But if the bringer blessed the dish that was made from God's kind of grain, it didn't come out, so it seems to me that it is Akal, and also the ancient Bastama HaKashshaa (Rish C. no SA) almost letter by letter with the addition of a little Aish, and the body of his words is about The next one in Kesnin 26 Haben Ha Haozer (3. xix, section 13) is that he extended to bring evidence for this, and it also means in the words of the B2 that he brought there, and I. also as K. H. (3. xix, sq. 3).

And it also seems that the Mishnab took from the main point of the law that comes out of the one who takes out the fath of the next meal in the Kesnin if it was intended to exempt him, at the end of his words [in the explanation of the halacha in C. X6 45 which are charged at the end] regarding the fath of the next meal in the Kesnin in the middle of the meal when it does not meet the requirements of C, even though his words 1 A. To bring a clear evidence to our case. What he brought yes in the name of the HIA, although the HIA himself is certainly of the same opinion, but what the Mishnab copied his words is not a clear evidence that he thinks is completely the same even in the blessing that is given on the mouth of the next person outside the meal, surely not He copied his words except for the pate that follows in the middle of the meal in such a way that all the conditions of the pate of the pate in the middle of the meal should not be omitted, in which the main opinion of the Mishnab is that a blessing is included in the middle of the meal to provide blessings to make it easy, but dalrocha damilta [in the manner explained in the Bahl there] he added that it is good to do as an advice The Hai'a to exempt in this way, and they are true that as long as there is no evidence from the Ma'kaa in the Mishnav to the contrary, it means that this is his opinion, but it is not completely clear that DIL is only here that he is for the welfare of Damilta (since there is a side that is a ready-made bread and has already come out with the Muzich and Sigi in this From the main point of the law, since there is no blessing to make it easier (according to the above) and in the case that there is still a party who is a party to the contract even without the third of the conditions as explained there and it did not come out because of that in the issuer and what was aimed at exempting the party was not useful since we will consider the following opinions that the issuer does not exempt a party in the contract , mm since most sides to Kola Segi in this).

However, Yaoi' in the 20th century, there in the case of the distribution of the food during the next meal in Kesnin, in a permanent way, that he passed away with the blessing of the remover, since he was in no need to bless the remover for it now, but in a temporary way, he did not pass away with the remover, except that his words there 11 bring clear evidence For our purposes, since there the one who spends the blessing on the bread, does not come to Hedia to exempt the next morsel in the kasnin.

And it is true that the Rabbi did not write as the life of Adam, as well as the Olat always wrote [quoted in Mordechai's article there] and concluded that in fact Tsa, and perhaps their method should be clarified by the reading of the following Fat in Kasnin MM Fat Satma not Akri, like what Damari' "A kerem zeit Akri a kerem satma not akri vei' in the Sukkah 13 in Sugi' Deshem Louis, but he still does not settle at all even then, why if he established his feast on it does the one who brings it bless him, in fact what the one who brings it can bless him when he establishes his feast on it proves that he has the right to be called A complete mouthful.

ויעוי' במאמר מרדכי סקי"ח שהאריך בנידון זה ובתחילת דבריו הביא דברי העולת תמיד ואח"כ דן לחלוק עליו ואח"כ דן אם נימא שיצא מטעם ספק (כמו שהעו"ת השאיר בצ"ע שגדרו ספק לפי מה שביאר המאמ"ר שם), ושוב הביא ראיה ברורה מן הרמב"ם שלא יצא וכך נקט למסקנתו שלא יצא, אלא שכ' שדבר שהוא מחלוקת השו"ע והרמ"א שלפי הרמ"א הוא המוציא לא יצטרך לחזור ולברך מזונות לצאת השו"ע דלענין זה אמרי' סב"ל עכ"ד.

[ויעוי' בהפסקי תשובות שהביא בשם המאמ"ר שסובר כהחיי אדם, ובאמת צ"ע וכן צ"ע שגם הכה"ח שם צירף את המאמר מרדכי להאחרונים המקילים בזה, והג"ר אלחנן כהן שליט"א מכולל חזו"א תירץ לי שהכה"ח מיירי רק לגבי פת הבאה בכסנין המסופקת שהוא פת הבאה בכסנין שלנו, ולא זכיתי להבין דבריו, דודאי אין כוונת הכה"ח לומר כן, חדא שהרי הביא דבריו על תחילת דברי השו"ע דמיירי על פת הבאה בכסנין סתמא, ודין פת הבאה בכסנין המסופקת דן שם בארוכה אחר זה, ועוד שהרי היה צריך כה"ח לחלק ולומר שיש אופן שלא יצא אליבא דהמאמ"ר באופן שהוא פת הבאה בכסנין שאינה מסופקת, ולמה כלל כל האופנים בסתמא שיצא, והרי אין כלל כזה שפת הבאה בכסנין שלנו הוא תמיד מסופק, שהרי יש לנו ולכל מדינה ומקום גם פת הבאה בכסנין שאינו מסופק, אם עונה ל' התנאים, והרי כל הפוסקים לדורותיהם כ' פסקי דינים לענין פת הבאה בכסנין שעונה על ג' התנאים בהרבה אחרונים, ובודאי שאם יש חילוק דין בזה היה צריך לציין זאת, ועוד דהרי לשי' המאמ"ר גופא כמעט אין פת הבאה בכסנין מסופקת, שהרי המאמ"ר סובר לשיטתו שכל אחד מג' התנאים מועיל לעשותו פת הבאה בכסנין, והמאמ"ר גופיה האופן של הספק שהזכיר הוא רק דבר שתלוי במחלוקת השו"ע והרמ"א כמבואר שם, והיינו באופן של מתיקות, וא"כ לומר שהמאמ"ר מדבר בסתם פת הבאה בכסנין שלנו אינו מדוייק כלל, ועוד דהרי הכה"ח שם כ' דהמאמ"ר דעתו כשאר האחרונים החי"א והקצש"ע, והרי אין דעתו כלל כמותם כלל ועיקר והוא חולק עליהם בתכלית, ולא סבר כן אלא באופן של ספק, נמצא מכ"ז שלא שייך לומר שהכה"ח התכוון לומר שהמאמ"ר מיירי רק באופן המסופק ולא באופן ודאי].

And above all, the opinion of the Mamar from the Rambam is apparently not difficult for the HIA Dharambam Shem Meiri regarding the matter of a stew of Dagan, but in this the HIA admits to the act of a pot, and he did not say his words except in the next portion of the Kesnin, and so on The Mamar, in that he did not divide the Dehari, is the apparent division, and as the assistant brought the taste that came out in the next fath in Kesnin, because in establishing a feast, it comes out with Yadah, and this taste is very understandable. Not in the act of a cauldron, since the act of a cauldron, after all, if he fixed his feast on it, he did not escape his obligation.

And the last case that I brought up in which it comes out first and foremost and according to the side that does not come out in the previous case, it means the same in Moshe's bonds as well as according to the above-mentioned side, I.S. 3 C. Kach letter 2, (mainly the words of the AGM seem to be accurate according to the side that does not come out in the Mouthi in the next pate in a purely Kesnin (who does not regularly eat a meal), and we were as explained by the A.R. Fat, and this apparently is not according to the interpretation of the AR, but it means to clarify in his words that the 18th Efi' comes out to begin with as he stated there according to the Ritba).

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

אין לטלטל פנס בידו לצורך גופו ומקומו, אלא רק באופנים המותרים בטלטול (ניעור, ורגל) בכל אופן לפי התנאים והשיטות המתירות טלטול מוקצה באופן כזה. מקורות: לכאורה היה מותר, כיון שהוא צורך גופו ומקומו, ועל אף שמבואר בסי' רעז הזכירו ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אין לטלטל פנס בידו לצורך גופו ומקומו, אלא רק באופנים המותרים בטלטול (ניעור, ורגל) בכל אופן לפי התנאים והשיטות המתירות טלטול מוקצה באופן כזה.

Sources:
לכאורה היה מותר, כיון שהוא צורך גופו ומקומו, ועל אף שמבואר בסי' רעז הזכירו לגבי נר שאם יש שם שמן א"א שלא לקרב או לרחק, שלא יטלטל את הנר אפי' ע"י ניעור, אבל שם יש חשש של גרם כיבוי ודוקא באופן של ניעור כמבואר במשנ"ב שם סקי"ז.

אולם באמת מצינו בנר שגם בלא חשש כיבוי כלל יש איסור לטלטל נר אפי' לצורך גופו ומקומו, עי' ריש סי' רעט ס"א וס"ב.

ויש כמה טעמים לענין איסור טלטול נר, החזו"א או"ח מא סקט"ז כ' משום שאין דרכה להיטלטל, והמנחת שלמה ח"א סי' יד והאג"מ או"ח ח"ג סי' נ כ' משום שאינה כלי, ועי' ארחות שבת ח"ג בירורי הלכה סי' ב' אות כא וח"ב פי"ט הערה רמא.

ודנו פוסקי זמנינו בהגדרה של מכשירי חשמל בזמנינו מה הגדרתם ואם הגדרתם כמו נר הדולק או לא, וכן דנו לענין פנס, ועי' באג"מ או"ח ח"ה סי' כב אות לו שכ' לחדש שדין פנס כדין נר משום שהוא דומה לנר, ובחוט שני [ח"ג פמ"ב סק"א אות ג] החמיר יותר ודעתו שכל מכשירי חשמל דינם כשלהבת, וכן חשש לסברא כעי"ז בשבט הלוי ח"ח סי' קסז שבעודו דולק לא יטלטלנו אפי' לצורך גופו ומקומו אלא רק ברגלו, אבל במנחת שלמה שם נקט שאין לחלק בין פנס לבין שאר מכשירי חשמל, אולם למעשה נקט שאין לטלטל פנס משום עובדין דחול (מאורי אש פ"ב עמ' 78 ד"ה אמנם זאת, ובמהדו"ח פ"ב ענף ג' עמ' קיד).

!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

הכרעת המ"ב ס"ס נב סק"י שלכתחילה ראוי לאמרן עד ד' שעות ובדיעבד גם אחר כך עד חצות ומי שנוהג לאמרן גם אחר חצות אין מוחין בידו. (וקודם לכן הביא גם דעת הגר"א שאפשר לברך ברכות השחר גם בלילה אם לא ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

הכרעת המ"ב ס"ס נב סק"י שלכתחילה ראוי לאמרן עד ד' שעות ובדיעבד גם אחר כך עד חצות ומי שנוהג לאמרן גם אחר חצות אין מוחין בידו.

(וקודם לכן הביא גם דעת הגר"א שאפשר לברך ברכות השחר גם בלילה אם לא בירך ביום, ואולם צל"ע אם מה דפסקי' שמברך על מנהגו של עולם גם אם לא עשה יהיה כדעת הגר"א, שהרי הגר"א לא בירך בת"ב על מנעלים עד שלבש בלילה כמ"ש במעשה רב, ובהגהות למעשה רב הביא בשם מוה"ר כהנא שנהג בכל ברכות השחר כסדר הגמ' ממש, וא"כ לדידן דנהגי' לפ"ד הרמ"א לברך על מנהגו של עולם לכאורה לא שייך לברך בלילה והגר"א לשיטתו שסובר שהוא על ההנאה, והנוהג לברך בלא שעשה (כגון מלביש ערומים בלא שלבש) וגם נוהג לברך בלילה שלאחריו הרי הוא נוהג כתרתי דסתרי, ואולי לכן לא הביא המשנ"ב הנהגה זו של לברך בלילה בלשון הכרעתו).

ומ"מ לגבי ברכות מסויימות רבו הדעות אם יכול לברך עליהם לאחר התפילה, ובביאור הלכה שם האריך בזה, וחלק מהם הם ברכת אלהי נשמה וברכות התורה ועוד מה שנזכר באחרונים.

ובמשנ"ב שם סק"ט הביא ב' עצות לענין אלהי נשמה שיכוון בברכת מחיה המתים שאינו רוצה לפטור בזה מאלהי נשמה, ואילו בברכת אהבה רבה יכוון שרוצה לפטור ברכה"ת וילמד תיכף לאחר התפילה (ולענין אם אפשר לכוון באהבה רבה שלא לצאת יד"ח ברכה"ת עי"ש בביאור הלכה מה שדן בזה).

ובבה"ל שם הוסיף דלכתחילה ראוי לברך ב' ברכות אלו (אלהי נשמה וברכה"ת) לפני התפילה שלא לבוא לידי ספק.

והביא שם עוד עצה לענין אלהי נשמה לישן קצת ביום ואז יוכל לצרף הדעות שמברכים אלהי נשמה על שינה ביום עם הדעות שאפשר לברך אלהי נשמה על שינת הלילה גם אחר התפילה, ובצירוף שניהם יוכל לברך.

ויש לציין לענין ברכת על נטילת ידיים דבזה פשיטא שהברכה היא על נטילת הידיים והכנתם לתפילה כמבואר בראשונים ברא"ש ורשב"א כל אחד לפי שיטתו והארכתי בתשובה אחרת, ואפי' אם נימא שיש ברכה על נט"י לתפילה בלא שינה לדידן עכ"פ בעשה צרכיו ושפשף (ןעי' משנ"ב ריש סי' ד'), מ"מ אין ברכת על נטילת ידיים כלל ליוצא מבית הכסא בלא שמתפלל אחר כך (ועי' בב"י סי' ד' וכן במשנ"ב ס"ס ד' בשם ארצה"ח), ואחר התפילה כבר עבר זמן הברכה וחובתה והכשרתה, הלכך בזה לא זו בלבד שאחר התפילה לא יוכל להשלים ברכת ענט"י אחר התפילה אלא שמוטל גם חיוב עליו לברכה קודם התפילה.

ויעוי' בערוך השלחן ס"ס נב שעורר על עוד ברכות שאפשר שלא יוכל לברכן לאחר התפילה וכן בספר מעורר ישנים עורר על כמה ברכות שאולי לא יוכל לברכן לאחר התפילה על דרך דברי הפר"ח המובא במשנ"ב שם לענין אלהי נשמה, וכן נקט הגרשז"א להזהר לומר הברכות קודם התפילה שלא ייכנס לספקות ועי' במשנ"ב שם.

!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

He came out with this (and more in the sources below), and it is not appropriate to say that he came out with this only in hindsight, in the sense of hindsight that God forbade him to act like this in the first place, it is not appropriate to say yes, since all of them are correct formulas from the first and were cited in the Shoah and the New Testament, but what is recommended is To drive regularly as people...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

He came out with this (and more in the sources below), and it is not appropriate to say that he came out with this only in hindsight, in the sense of hindsight that God forbade him to act like this in the first place, it is not appropriate to say yes, since all of them are correct formulas from the first and were cited in the Shoah and the New Testament, but what is recommended is To behave regularly like the people of his community, and if he knows his father's custom in this, some say that it is preferable to behave according to his father's customs, and if he is a penitent, some say that he is not bound by his father's custom and can behave according to the custom of his sages in this way, and some of the judges mean that in their words, even a repentant person is better off acting according to his father's custom, and some of the judges who mentioned that it is not appropriate to mix formulas but to say everything in the same formula and not to combine them.

And the main point in all of this, as far as it pertains to Halacha, is that if there is something in which the original wording is known, it is appropriate to say the original wording, and in something that has several correct formulas, if he has a clear community to which he belongs, he will act according to the customs of that community, and the rest of the things mentioned are matters and recommendations on the part of leadership, and retrospective matter does not belong to them.

Sources: In the language of the scribes and the sources, I extended the Shu'at with Segulah, and in the Lichash, a prayer and in the language of the scribes that were cited in the book Gadoli Dorot on Mishmar Ashkenaz custom.

And in completing the things, it should be noted in the context of what the questioner is clarifying, does it belong retrospectively in a wording change, i.e. does it belong to say that it comes out only in retrospect, and the answer to this, Dahann, is that we accepted a wording change to Didan that is only in retrospect, as explained in the commentary to the halacha ss 12z and in other places and akmal, However, since there are several correct formulas here and all of the Mishnav C. 6 concerning another change between two formulas as far as God forbid delete one of them (since both are correct), this cannot be said to have been done retrospectively if he did it according to the Rambam instead of according to the Rabbi (i.e. in the above-mentioned Mishnav C. regarding the matter of the settlement if it opens, etc.), and despite the fact that the language mentioned in the Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, the latter does not hinder at all, i.e. according to the Rama's opinion that it should be said that he builds Jerusalem with his mercy is not Impeding if in retrospect he did not say, and also according to the Hagra that in the first place it should be said that he is building Jerusalem is not impeding if he said he is building Jerusalem in his mercy, but to Dan what is the angel Michael to me and what is to me the angel Gabriel 4. The formulas are correct to Dan, and what belongs in retrospect if he acted as a different method, but if he belongs Any community is subject to the discussion here of not congregating, and even though there is a B2D here in one city [i.e. Yavmot Yad], if one belongs to a certain community it must be discussed, and what the Hagam has allowed is not allowed to heal a community member A who acts in a certain way as members of another community in a way that is evidently not doing according to the custom of his community, this is because all those belonging to his community practice the same (such as A from Lithuania who practices in Parhasya B. Nakvim in his Talito).

And in body L of the above-mentioned Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, it should be noted that the model of the language in retrospect is a language that has degrees, and like what Damari' in the Gm' mitzvah regarding the obligation of permission to say to her, and the matter of everything, if he came to the king we would tell him to do so, Doing otherwise is considered backward, but something that if he came to the king we would say to him do this and if you wish do that is already another level of backwardness, and is not really backward like the above-mentioned first kind of backwardness, and in the Nidd, if he came to the king we would say to him bless As a certain opinion, and if you want to bless as a certain opinion, we find a model of what the Mishnav mentioned to a tongue in retrospect, perhaps not completely in retrospect, as it remains in hindsight in other places, and therefore the accuracy of the Mishnav in retrospect does not hinder at all.

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

If it is evident that it is done for the purpose of goods that are prohibited on Shabbat, there is no permit for it, and if this is not evident, if the bottles are intended to be used for drinking on Shabbat evening, they are apparently permitted in the shake but not in the organization of the transaction, and if on Shabbat evening the bottles are intended only for the purpose of goods, there would be room to say...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it is evident that it is done for the purpose of goods that are prohibited on Shabbat, it is not permitted, and if this is not evident, if the bottles are intended for drinking on Shabbat evening, apparently, shaking is permitted but not in the organization of the transaction, and if on Shabbat evening the bottles are intended only for the purpose of goods, there would be reason to say that shaking is prohibited, in any case in a rich one that does not use reusable disposable bottles.
And regarding whether they changed their purpose in the middle of Shabbat, there seems to be a disagreement among the arbitrators, but in fact the Gramm Lubin ordered (and although he did not refer specifically to the rich, but in general he ordered) that empty bottles are not particularly important for the goods, and regarding other discussions related to this it is better to refer to the inside of the sources.

Sources: In the matter of dealing with the needs of the Holy Spirit in things that are forbidden on Shabbat in a way that is evident, Yaoi' in Eruvin 10 AA, and Ohh C. Shu SA and in the Mishnab and in the Hal Isam, and there C. Shaz C. 9 and in the Mishnab Sqm .

And it should be noted that the main thing that is discussed in the above-mentioned sources in a way that clearly deals with the need for a holiday, is to forbid api' without any business at all, but during a visit or a stay and the like, all of these mm. Taltul in Alma, as the Mishnav C. Rand Skamag, (and instead of a loss that if he does not collect the bottles now they will lose from him, this should be discussed by A. in the Mishnav Ibid. and the Mishnav C. Shacha Skakaa).

And while moving one bottle from place to place may not be a prohibition at all (according to the words of the Gershza 66 Pacha 8 note Kets 4 Shosha 3 Sha 6 S4), but going to the trouble of collecting bottles is apparently included in the Tirha case for the sake of sand .

And in the matter of bottles intended for the evening of Shabbat only for the purpose of goods and not for any other apparent purpose, there was reason to say that they were allocated to goods, and A. C. Shay SA in the matter of a thing that stands for goods that is not food.

And it is true that regarding bottles that stand for drinking and goods, there is no concern about them, since at most they are nothing more than a tool whose function is to prohibit and permit, according to C. Shach in the Maga Skt in the name of the signs of heroes MH 1a letter 2 and was brought up in the Mash'nab SKK, and "A in Shoa C. Shay 9, and it should not be argued that the AAP stands for what is permitted, that nevertheless there will be a prohibition assigned due to a lack of pocket, as we found that there is a prohibition assigned due to a lack of pocket in a thing that is about to be merchandise (cit. Rama At the end of the 18th century and in the Bible there and in the HL C. Rant in the 4th century, but), it cannot be argued that it does not belong here at all, since there is no care that these bottles should not be used in the meantime, and in any case there is no prohibition against having a pocket in them (cit. from the Bible) C. Sh. S. K. Z.).

But on the other hand, it must be discussed on the other hand that there is no prohibition of goods except because of lack of pocket, but when there is no strictness and then there is no allocation due to lack of pocket, then there will be no prohibition at all if the allocation is completely for goods only and not for permissible use at all.

And on the other hand, it should be said, as we proposed to say in the beginning, that although there is no assignee because of a lack of pocket, but there is an assignee because the merchandise is pending.

And we seem to find a contradiction in this matter in the Mishnav, the Debbihal in the above-mentioned C. Rent ruled on the basis of several recent ones, not as the MGA there, but rather took the view that it is not strictly necessary if the thing entered into the treasury is made as an allocation for goods and is prohibited for this reason, however, in C. Sheh in the Mishnav "B SKZ means that the Mishnav is just like the above-mentioned MGA in C. Rent to make it easier, and C.E.

And another Dhamishnav in C. Rent brought that the AR doubts the Maga, while in C. Shah brought in the name of the AR himself that he agrees with the words of the Maga, (and one must add DCA another Dhagarz in C. Rent took Allegedly as the MGA there and B.S. Shah allegedly took Dla as the MGA, and I. in his KOA C. Rent SKA).

And to the body of the contradiction in the words of the Mishnav, it should be noted that Dr. Gofia in C. Rant SQ brought the words of the Maga in a blind and raiding manner, but he wrote a leaf and it is possible to divide it accurately in the tools in which it is careful and ended with a tsa, and so it is explained to the pz everything, the commentary The halacha in S. Rant that ruled as a matter that is not a tool, which is in any case if it stands for goods, he does not use it, but in the Mishnav in S. Shach Meiri regarding a thing that is a tool, in which the AR himself agrees with the HGA, that if he does not adhere to it is not assigned.

And the explanation of the division between a thing that is a tool and a thing that is not a tool is possible, that a thing that is a tool does not distract from its use even when it is intended for merchandise, (however strict and then it is prohibited in all respects), as for a thing that is not a tool if it is intended for merchandise, one does not intend to use this thing as a rule of thumb is not strict, so something that is not a tool in any way will be allocated, so it is possible to divide.

And if this division is correct, it would be appropriate to say regarding empty disposable bottles that everyone knows are not suitable for use, they are not legal as tools for this purpose, but as woolen fleeces (cit. Rant, ibid.) , and so on.

And I looked at the collection books and saw that they brought in the name of the helper (who is the one who based on his words, the commentary went there, to rule rather than as the Maga in this) the Supreme Court decided to divide between tools and woolen fleeces, and he chose that woolen fleeces, since they are only suitable for spinning, in any case distracts from them, But in this way he admits that if he is not careful it is not forbidden.

And according to this reason, there is perhaps a reason to say, on the other hand, that on the other hand, a bearer who goes back and uses empty bottles on a regular basis to fill them with cold water or juice, their judgment is as a vessel, and if they are not careful with them, it is allowed even if they stand for goods, but in a house where this is not used, a pashita is not better than woolen fleeces.

And on the other hand, it is still necessary to say dafi' in the house where it is customary to go back and use empty bottles, however, it is not important as a tool for our case, since it is just a tool that is being discussed by the judges (we were what the above-mentioned latter came up with, according to the Rama'a C. Shah SA) It is a tool that is definitely ready for use and it is decided who will use it, and since it is ready for use, the seller may use it and is not distracted, but a tool that has been used and has now decided to end its use and its sale is not for the purpose of use but for the purpose of the craft of recycling and remanufacturing in the factory, It is more similar to woolen gizzes in this, since woolen gizzards also have the use of burial as explained in C. Rent there, and however, since they are intended for the production of clothes, they are not considered tools.
And that's it.

And once again I looked at the body of the words of the stone, the helper in the interior and the psalmist, and the Maga wrote [section 4] precisely when he is careful about them as it is written in the mark of the 18th end of section 1, and not thin, they were demarcated from merii with tools that are not assigned even though they were given to the goods, but when he is careful about them He is assigned because of a lack of pocket, and he took out there the 2 [Amud Rachtz 4 HaKit] in the name of the Rabbi the Magid [Shabbat 20, 10] a sum for fruits that were prepared for the goods of the day by eating, but here it is explained that woolen sticks are assigned, only if they did not give For the hidden treasure, they are canceled for burial, and this is the Torah of tools on them, but he gave the hidden treasure a future to return them to the treasury, therefore there is no void for burial, and it is in any case assigned, as explained in Rashi in the Gemara [Shabbat 9, 1 D. Rabina] 8, and 2 [ Here is the page of Paz DH Mohin] written by G.C.
And therefore there is not even a strict about them being forbidden here, and it's just a joke.

And it is explained from his words that the reason for prohibiting woolen gizzards more than bales is not a new law in the definition of a muqza that is a commodity, but the definition is that only something that is allocated is prohibited when it is allocated to a commodity, and the definition of allocation to a commodity is only a definition that helps woolen gizzards receive their forfeiture from the permitted use on Shabbat and singles them out for craft use that is prohibited on Shabbat , and for our purposes, it was found that the issue will depend on the matter of the factory itself, which bottles are set apart for production, if it is considered allocated by them, it will also be considered allocated by the seller of bottles (according to what is explained in the account in the auxiliary stone), but if it is stated that the factory is not considered allocated by them, since it is also suitable for them to drink if they want, So apparently even with the seller to them it will not be considered assigned.

And in fact there was a great place to say that at the Effi factory, if they do not avoid reusing empty bottles in their day-to-day life, the bottles in the factory that are special for the craft are like throwing away the remnants of Dalkman mats, which by its uniqueness makes it unique, and like climbing figs and grapes to the roof of an egg, etc. And I. in Sogi' in PV Dashabt regarding the matter of the wicking of the garment that folded what was brought in the fences there, and in this matter in fact.

However, I spoke with the GRAMM Lubin of LITA and he said that it turns out that these bottles are considered tools and not as woolens, since he can still use them, and if he has completely removed his mind from the MM bottles, if he needs them, he will take them from them to use them as tools for Akkad, var. For the woolen fleeces of their own shape that are intended for craft use, as a bottle is shaped to be used for drinking, and what one wants to use for crafting does not deprive it of what is included in the essence of its shape, which is a vessel used for drinking.

And there really is a fine line here in the division between woolen gizzards and drinking bottles, since even with woolen gizzards, the helper used them for things permitted on Shabbat without the edge being merchandise, and yet when they are intended for merchandise, they are void of kosher use.

And it is possible to clarify the above division of the LTTA Mover that the division is in the casual use of this by mere mortals, that by mere mortals empty bottles are used several times for drinking, and on the other hand, by mere mortals, woolen gizzards are used for crafts and not for burial, and indeed if The person himself uses it for the permitted thing such as landfill, after all, it is permitted, but if he uses it for goods, it has nothing to do with permitted use on Shabbat.

And Yeoi' in a second thread (HG PNA end of SKA) that empty bottles if thrown into the trash on Shabbat are not assigned because they are fit for use, and if they were thrown into the trash on Shabbat it means that they are assigned, and perhaps there is room for a division between Yahidan for commerce and thrown into the trash, that if it is singled out for trade, it is possible that it is easier than a thrower for the trash, although even with regard to trash, the definition of throwing a broken vessel a day in advance is stated, and that if you throw a whole vessel in the trash a day in advance is not prohibited [from the 20th century], and also with regard to being singled out for trade, the majority of the latter agree as For only something that is a finished tool is not prohibited, and yet in the raids for our purposes it should be said that the law of garbage is equal to the law of trade, but there is room for division in this, since after throwing it in the garbage he will not come back and use it, because of disgust, you took something out of the garbage, but after he set it aside for trade he can come back and use it.

It is true that in the body of the words of the above-mentioned two threads, in the letter of the Garshaza in Ma'or Hasabbat 12, letter 22, letter 7, that it is possible that the Garnak is stricter about this, and it is possible that our empty bottles are not considered a one-time use, since they are filled again and sometimes they are more convenient To fill them with reusable jugs for various reasons, and it is more common to reuse disposable plates and cutlery, and I don't have the book in my possession right now.

And according to the side that a bottle that stands for merchandise has a specific prohibition in it, regarding a bottle that at the beginning of Shabbat was also standing for drinking purposes and in the middle of Shabbat was emptied and its purpose changed only to merchandise, perhaps the condemned party should discuss the issue in the case of Assigned to half of Shabbat, and all that is discussed regarding another who will leave the reason for assigning, but as long as he is in an assigned state, a name that is considered assigned from the middle of Shabbat is explained as well, and also explained in the types of dakhlim that were broken in the Mishna Shabbat Kakad EB and Shu'a Och C. Shech Sou, And it must be discussed whether he is a judge in the allocation because of his body, but in the simplicity of God also in the Nidd in the allocation because it stands for goods (and it should not be made difficult by the words of the Maga cited in Bihal C. Shay 36 D. A bed, whose opinion tends to allow a boy a bed that is made a base For meot in the middle of Shabbat, according to Yisrael, Desham Meiri is not the mover of the assignee itself but the basis of the assignee, as the mover of the assignee itself, and yet there is also a reference to this as the Mash of the Behal in the name of the Maga).

And it does not belong to the condemned for a package that was emptied on Shabbat, where the condemned is on the part of the thing that it is not suitable for use, and the bottle is allocated because of his body, the same here that the thing becomes a vessel whose work is prohibited in the middle of Shabbat and an empty bottle is not allocated because of his body because it is used for reuse.

And Ya'oi' in the Mishnav C. Shay Skacho regarding the issue of being assigned due to a lack of pocket, the 16th was forbidden in the middle of Shabbat, and as for the opinion of the Maga, and the Rama, and the Shach differ, and the Mishnav seems to have taken that only in times of need can be trusted on the dividers, while the Chazu'a acted as dividers (Och C. Mag 7 and C. Matt. 9), but the permission is as explained in his words because the knife in question there is a tool and was assigned to his mitzvah between the panes, but if it is not a tool, he admits to the 16 In the middle of Shabbat, since it began to be set aside because of lack of pocket, and because it was a pashita for the judges to set such a set aside, we learned from figs and grapes to consider the middle of Shabbat set aside, according to the 15th century, even for a matter set aside because of a prohibition, one must say yes, and according to the opinion of the Hazaza It also belongs here, since this thing is worthy of a vessel and was assigned to the permitted use on the evening of Shabbat, and so apparently it will be discussed depending on the latter's dispute.

And if he is rich and does not use a bottle for reuse (such as those who bring it to the deposit for a poor person who came and asked for the bottle) it is apparently assigned because of his body, A.C. Shekh Sanav.
And A.A. in BHL C. Shah S.S. 45, all regarding a vessel whose craftsmanship is prohibited and not worthy of craftsmanship, whose use is proven to be assigned because of its body, and what can be used for a deposit fee is as follows, if there was an empty bottle in the evening Shabbat and it didn't occur to him to use it, and on Saturday a poor man came and asked, in this way he is from a quota, which was already allocated from the beginning of Shabbat, and if at the beginning of Shabbat there was a full bottle and it was emptied in the middle of Shabbat and he came back and thought about it for the sake of the poor, so since it was not allocated at the beginning of Shabbat, it is now useful to cancel the assignee, according to what is explained in C. Shi 33, Ish.

And since the one who threw an entire vessel into the garbage is void of opinion for any person and is not assigned, according to the Mishnab C. Shach Sana, MM here it seems that the reality that a rich person will not reuse an empty bottle belongs.
However, of course with most people it does not belong at all.

And here is the KIL Och Shach Sib that if he threw the remains of mats before the day into the trash, the hol is assigned, and it means that if he threw on Shabbat it is permissible, and because of this we would have to discuss our case, but it must be said that there is no money, then a change is made in the body of the use of the tool on Shabbat and is similar to the tool that is broken, and also the reason that if it was thrown away on Shabbat it is not assigned, it is possible that it is because if it is thrown out of the trash now it is found to have a use again, and something that was assigned for half of the Sabbath comes back and becomes permissible when the assigned is canceled from it as above, and in our case the purpose of taking it is for goods, and in this I do not mean, and although there is There is a bit of urgency in this rejection. It is found that if the remains of the mat were thrown into the garbage on Shabbat and it was shaken, not out of necessity at all, it would be forbidden, and this is not mentioned in the Gm' and Shu'a, but the rejection must be said in a different way, that something that is considered a commodity since it has a chain of prohibition makes no sense to permit it only Because it was not like that in the Bishnu Shashom, Masha'k is assigned because of its body in a way that is not assigned because of a prohibition on its part and its form, but only because of the opinion of the Hebrew Bible, that the definition of use is determined in the Bishnu Shashom, and in this way.

However, after I spoke with the above-mentioned Mover Shalita, in his opinion it meant that empty bottles are simply not allocated, and he avoided using them and singled them out for fun because if he had to, he would use them for reuse, and he did not mention a rich issue at all, and perhaps Mover thinks that Regarding a rich person who does not use empty MM bottles, his opinion is invalid, and it should also be mentioned here that he believes that sometimes even a very rich person will be more comfortable using a disposable bottle instead of the necessary one, even though he has the money to buy something else and there are plenty of examples of this.

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

If there is fecal matter with a smelly oozing smell, surely it should be aggravated from the place where the smell was contained. If it is not known whether there is fecal matter or not, it should be eased, and with a new diaper that does not contain fecal matter for sure, it should not be aggravated at all (and I wrote about this in another answer). but ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If there is fecal matter with a wafting smell, surely the DA should be aggravated from the place where the smell was contained.

And if it is not known whether there is feces or not, it should be made easier, and for example, with a new diaper that does not have feces in it, there is no need to make it worse at all (and I wrote about this in another answer).
But if there is a reason to be satisfied that there is excrement, it is appropriate to check and find out when it is possible to find out.

And if there is excrement in the diaper and there is no smell coming out of it at all, efi' not up close, it should be lightened (except where there is no tiraha at all to aggravate it, then it is better to aggravate it with a sina'a and not a parhasiya) as if the tatol is covered with an upper garment.

And if the diaper itself is exposed and there is no covering of pants over it, etc., then one should be afraid to make it worse if possible.

 

Sources: We are going into some issues with this, A. Is covered feces that has a smell to be kept away or is it enough that it stands in a place that does not smell.

And the second subject, is a dirty napkin considered as an abit for the matter to be considered as real faeces if the faeces in it do not smell at all.

And the third issue is the issue of whether excrement in its place is serious for the purpose of not being covered at all or is not more serious for this matter than any other excrement.

And here regarding the first condemned, here is the ruling: Covered excrement is allowed to read Kash against it (Och C. Os. SA and Sab), but in the way that the excrement still has a wafting smell, there is a dispute among the first ones whether it is still considered a bad smell that has a main or No, the Rashba's opinion was to make it easier on this, and Segi on what does not reach him, but the pharmacist's opinion is to make it worse, and considers a covered faeces model to be considered a bad smell that has a main effect, and should be removed from the place where the smell is contained.

And there are the latter who took it as the Rashba and the Gara and the clothing and the HiA took it as the pharmacist, and in the PMG there are contradictions in this, and also in the Bahl (introduction C. et letter 7) what he brought in the name of the way of life and also he brought all these opinions and also in O. S. G.

And the Mishnav in 3 places brought the 2nd opinions and did not decide, and it is true that in C. O. Skag there may be a bit of a meaning that tends to make it easier, and on the other hand in the above-mentioned Bahl it is possible that he expanded more on the opinion of the Oserin (but there is no clear evidence there since Dakai there On the language of the PMG Damkil in this and on this he noted the strict opinions) [And again I found in the tribe of Levi HT C. R. who seems to have understood that the opinion of the BHL is here to be strict about this], and in the BHL C. et Sabv brought in the stama that there is a phlogta in this And noted the above-mentioned Bahl's words and did not decide.

And probably because it is a fallugata in Daoriyata (the stricter ones are stricter than Daoriyata as shown in the above-mentioned Bahl) that is why the Mishnab did not make light of it and did not decide on it, but the rule is that due to the Torah he followed the stricter one.

And it should be noted that the language of the rulings in the KCM regarding covered excrement is "that it does not deserve the smell" as in the Shoah C. O. SB. .

And even for those who are strict about it, the definition of the matter of covered excrement and a wafting odor must still be discussed. Is it a matter of the 23rd that he can smell only after making an effort and getting really close to the source of the odor in such a way that there is no smell that spreads in the room at all, and the way that was allowed to read against covered excrement is only in such a way that there is no Possibility to feel the smell beyond the cover that covers it, such as a vacuum cover or a vacuum cover.

Or it should be said that the stricter model did not worsen except in such a way that at least the smell spreads a little, but the smell does not reach the person reading.

And there is reason to argue that for two reasons, it is urgent to put the issues of covered excrement only in the 23rd of complete coverage that there is no smell beyond the cover, since most covers are not made in this way, and if it is not said yes, then that is how the stricters will interpret the law of covering excrement The Brook explained in C. O. S. 6 is from some of the first, and it does not seem that they came to dispute it.

And Yaoi' in the BHL C. et Sabv who brought the above-mentioned phlogta in abbreviated language to the matter of excrement "that is covered with an additional smell", and urges to say that it is meant to describe something that can only be smelled by effort and absolute closeness.

And in spite of the fact that we do not have a decision in the aforementioned group of arbitrators, and we are stricter than that, instead of having to attach this opinion, it is possible that this opinion should be taken into account.

However, in a previous class that I had the privilege of sitting with the teacher of the Gramm Karp was asked in this way that smelling is only done up close and he replied that it is explained in the puskims to forbid it, and from his words he did not take this as a sbara, but that anyone who belongs to approach and smell enters here into the group of the puskims regarding the matter of covered excrement and a wafting smell and according to the Torah he followed the stricter

And Yaoi' in the Shu'at of the tribe of Levi HT C. R. S. K. B. that he took in doubt, if there is excrement in the napkin, it should be lightened [and we mean anything to which the smell does not reach] and there is definitely excrement, it should be moved away from the place where the smell was contained, and what the lightened in doubt is seen because SS, and it is possible that he also added to this the reasoning that I mentioned that there is a certain rate for what is considered a foul odor and not everything is considered a foul odor, and it also appears there that he believed that there is no need to fear that there is excrement, which is a doubt in the Alma dela mehzeki' isura and reiota sfka.

But he didn't make it easy on behalf of Flogta in Darbanan, since those who are aggravating fecal matter covered with a stank are making it aggravating because of Daoriyata and the like, and the more that there is defecate faeces, then he must there remove DA from the place where the odor is perceived, since the removal of DA is Daurita according to the Bahl's Mish in the introduction Rish C. Et according to the Likoti of the Ramban Barchot 22 EB.

And also the OLC (chapter 55 answer yd) the Supreme Court of Justice took the same view as Gerash and Azner that in doubt there is no need to be afraid, and it is possible that they also included the explanation I wrote above, but it is not necessary that even without this explanation there is sufficient doubt, and they also took another Judges (cf. in the book Vazet Barakah 57 p. 150 and in the book Cleanliness and Respect in Prayer, chapter 6).

And the Garnak made the doubt worse, but all the other arbiters of our time did not act in the same way as above, and for that reason the doubt should be alleviated, and it is possible to say Dethlevi in the degree of doubt and everything according to the matter, and the main point of the words of the Levite tribe is that the person wakes up in such a way that there is a reutah here and AZ Kamer Dafuzti Riota does not confirm, but in the rest of the doubt that can be ascertained easily, I do not take aim at it in general, in the doubt that it can be ascertained from a barrin.

And the Grisha (and this is the Barakah 57 p. 150) ordered according to the opinion of the Mikili that he can remove the odor until the point where the smell is present and to begin with they will clean it first, and here is what the strict ones feared at first is simple, but what he took that the main point of the law can be eased in this, aa "3) that he was confused in the Daoriyata 14A about this, and it is possible that he relied on the above-mentioned evidence that I brought from the pockets of excrement in saliva or that he learned from the Mishnav in the S. A. that I mentioned above that his main opinion was to decide to make it easier, but it is not required there at all and in the Mishnav C.C. SKPD may be of the opinion that the main point of the law is to ease this.

And in the matter of the second condemned person named Hagarshaza (Lichash P.C. letter 5) it was brought that a titol that has excrement in it is judged as a wife's grave (except that water with feet did not make it worse, and it is necessary to find out according to his method that if there is a cover of clothing on the titol Covered excrement is not serious, and on the other hand, when there is no cover, it will be forbidden if there is no smell at all, whatever there is or there was excrement in this vessel at least once, and in fact

And again I answered inside the book Halikot Shlomo and I saw that it is really explained from his words that if the baby is wearing a garment over the diaper, it is not the Meiri Hagarshaza at all.

And for the body of the opinion of the Gershaza, one should look at what Stittul has taken to have a graph definition of rai, since there is no determination here for permanent use but one-time use, and as we found in holy books that use one-time packaging for them which is not as important as ordering it for the book that will need genizah, but it is possible that here it is more serious Since there in the book the definition is what is used by the book and it will never be singled out for the purpose of the book and will never be removed from there, it is found that it is not special to the book, the agreement here regarding a graph is considered to remove any use from this tote in favor of the new use since it will never remove the excrement from there.

However, in the name of Rabbi Karlitz Harauni (which was cited in the book Cleanliness and Honor in Prayer, chapter 6, and it was also cited in his name in the book, and this is the blessing there) that there is no law of titul as law of an obituary.
And also what was discussed in the answer of the AGM, O.H., C., line, S.B.
And M.M. it is necessary to settle on the matter of whether it should be made easier since Abit's question is Dauriita a.

And the third discussion in this regards excrement in place of the mother, which is prohibited even in the covering, which the MGA (C. Pa SKI'A) made it stricter about it, but the latter disagreed with it (see Be'er Hitt SKB and other latter ones, and also the Mishnab SusK3 omitted this point of The Maga Aish), as well as in the tribe of Levi where Shat resorted to fearing the Maga (and in the paragraphs of the answers of C. Iz letter 7 I saw that he mentioned to some of the latter who believed to be the Maga but I did not have the leisure to check the originals).
And also the Shevli Helect that the Maga brought at the beginning of his words (which was also brought in the 2nd year there) simply did not believe because of this fear of the Maga that added to the words of the Shevli Heklet.

However, in the opinion of the Maga, it is necessary to discuss whether Meiri Epi' without any smell at all or with the smell of something that does not belong to him in the opinion of those who mitigate it with excrement that is not in its place, and Yaoi' in KOHH SKZ6.
And according to the Halacha, the latter have ruled that it is not to be afraid of it, and for the matter of fearing to begin with in a place where there is no tyracha, if there are some recent ones who thought as the Maga it is good to be afraid to begin with where there is no tyracha at all.

I wrote the conclusion of the things and their summary and the conclusion to the Halacha in the Rish Teshuvah.

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