Those who practice according to the clear Mishnah are allowed to make it easier and only do dessert and ablution. Sources: The current in the Jud C. Pat in explaining the words of the Rama, there it means that they took to make it worse...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Those who practice according to the clear Mishnah are allowed to make it easier and only do dessert and ablution.

Sources:
In the commentary on the words of the Rama, there it means that they resorted to making it stricter like the Zohar [Mishtimim Kakah 1a] who simply did not divide between milk after meat and meat after milk in the same meal, Iash in Shekh Skat'7 And in the Bihagara SKO, as well as the PMG in the Yod there SKO brought from the clothing in O. C. Keag who made it very worse and the AGM brought the PMG's words, however in the year 2012 at the end of the 11th of Shavuot it seems that there was a raid on him that it is permissible and I have also seen in the name of the Gerhak [the shalchan according to his rule] that this is the custom.

And it is possible that the Mishnav Myri according to what they had a clear custom on the Sabbaths to make it easier, and he urges.
And Ya'oi' in PMG Yod Shem 70 that their custom was to bless in the HMZ after the milk before the meat.

And we see Dharma in the Yod making a meal only with milk after meat, which interprets in the Gm's a meal after meat that it must be stopped in the Behmaza in order to have another meal, and this is what is said there about milk after meat, and the same was brought by the PMG in the Yod there Sec. 7 In the name of the Rabbi, the author of the 18th century in the glosses of Sha'ari Dura C. O. letter 2 [and noted the name of the PMG in the SKA according to Hamudot Chulin P. H. A. letter Kah and Minchat Ya'akov Klal O. letter 3 who stood by it and also explained in the SACH SKA ] Damshak in the Gm in Saudta Ahrita (in the matter of milk after meat) we were in the ruling of Bracha 17, and what they used in the ruling of the hour is justified there that it is instead of a dessert [and it will be explained more in his words above SKA], and the ruling does not belong to the Zohar law at all, but any custom It is to bless in the Hamz and to wait an hour after meat before milk is only according to the Hajm, and in any case the custom is only with milk after meat and not with meat after milk, because it is because of the Hajm and not because of the Zohar. After meat, Dvgm mentions this only in the matter of milk after meat and not about meat after milk (apart from meat after hard cheese, which is discussed by itself, what was judged and what was defined, and where we learned, etc.

And perhaps in a different way (we were on the basis of the previous method only to settle that he took the Zohar as its interpretation in the Gm) who urged to interpret it also in the imaginary Zohar only in milk after meat only, and I.A.

However, these excuses are only to reconcile the words of the Mishnab with the Rama in the Yod there, but as we will explain that the simplicity of the interpretation of the Gra in the Rama is that it is like the Zohar, and also in the Shekh Skatz apparently the most meaningful that it must be made stricter [And tchak that the Shachak put miri with meat after hard cheese, and apparently according to the Zohar it is necessary to make it worse during the Hada Hada and the Saudta Hada also with meat after any milk that may be and Tsa, and also Tsa that the Gara in the Skya brought a source for abstaining from meat after hard cheese From the Zohar 25 in B. O. C. Keg, and indeed in the Zohar they did not specifically mention cheese, and perhaps it is considered to be aggravated only by something that has a lingering taste, and with milk, it is not permitted that the taste does not persist for the entire hour if he then made dessert and washed it off legally, and it is true that also In the above-mentioned Shekh it is possible to interpret yes].
And really, the Rama's simplicity in his language that he brought the custom only for milk after meat means that there was no custom for meat after milk to wait an hour and bless with the Hamza, and who is the PMAG custom to bless with the Hamza also in this after the milk before the meat, and maybe the Rama He acted in such a way because of Dekai's words on the author's words, and in all this.

It was found that the strict ones are certainly the clothing and custom brought by the PMG and the lenient ones are certainly the Mishnab and it is also possible to say according to what the Shachak explained in the Sakya and other rulings as above [the Mahara'i and his assistant] the custom brought by the Rama, while according to the reference to wisdom that the Shachak brought in the 17th, as well as the Hagra and the Bi, how they interpreted the Zohar's opinion should be reviewed in their opinion.

And also in the Rama's opinion, as above, however, his main opinion regarding the intention of the custom turns out to be like the Mahara'i and other rulings as above, and it is also explained in the ways of Moshe SKA that his opinion is the same as the Mahara'i in interpreting the words of the Hag'm there according to the custom (that is, the custom interprets the words of the GAM there) and that the hour is a sort of compromise between the aforementioned Mahara'i opinion [based on the opinions of the Tos and Rabi'a and the other lenient firsts] and the strict opinions of waiting a few hours.

And Yaoi' in the ways of Moshe above mentioned regarding milk after hard cheese which he mentioned to the Zohar, and as mentioned above the Zohar does not only follow cheese, and perhaps it should be reconciled as above that the Zohar interprets in a way that gives a taste and not by drinking milk in Alma and more seems to have brought the words of the Zohar only For the welfare of Damilta to give samakh to the tradition of the Maharam in Gabina, and the 27th century.

Regarding those who practice waiting for an hour if dessert is needed other than that (such as those who practice without stopping for an hour when then surely dessert is needed) Yaoi' in Shekh SKA and PMG 17.

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

Jacob our father actually benefited from the blessings as explained in the Sages in several places because they were intended for him and he did not do so and this was God's will and because of this Yitzchak Soma was made as explained in the Sages, so that Jacob would take the blessings (cit. Medhag Edition p. net) , and also ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Jacob our father actually benefited from the blessings as explained in the Sages in several places because they were intended for him and he did not do so and this was God's will and because of this Yitzchak Soma was made as explained in the Sages, so that Jacob would take the blessings (cit. Madhag Edition p. net) , and also Yitzchak himself, if he had known that they had done evil and Jacob was righteous, he would have given the blessings to Jacob in advance (ibid., end of p. Edelstein, and see at length Madhag p. 16 the words of Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Elazar), and everything that Jacob did was according to a prophecy and the blessing of his mother Rebekah (see Unclus 27:13 and Madhag p. 11), and I. more According to the Sages, Isaac also agreed to the blessing of Jacob when it was said, and he called, etc., and blessed him, and also when he said, "Blessed be he, and so was Esau himself when he said, 'My brother, may it be with you,'" and also Esau's song was written and he blessed him there, and even God agreed with it in the later interpretation.
And regarding what is written, your brother came fraudulently, I.e. in my commentary on the Madhag what I wrote there in this verse.

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

Every day that they don't say supplication, they don't say may God be willing. Sources: Boosh Takht 2, was brought in the 17th century in the name of the SKA, from the Mahesh in the SKA in the name of Haq Ya'akov in the name of customs, from the 18th century in the same name, the Garaz in the same name in the 2nd, Kashshaa 23, 27. And I saw in the answers G that mentioned to the latter...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Every day that they don't say supplication, they don't say may God be willing.

Sources: Boosh Takht 2, was brought in the 17th century, ibid., from the Mahesh, ibid.
And I saw in the answers of Kamez 7 that he pointed out to the latter that they were puzzled about this custom that was hidden from the words of the Rishonim, and from Mm above that the definition in this is because it is not a law but a custom, therefore since there is a clear custom not that Baki' is a clear custom of ours and Azli' another custom of the Rishonim which is not practiced now.

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

I extended this with an extended answer in the situations and sides of the condemned, and the main thing is that whoever it bothers him, which includes most people, does not go out of his duty in such a sukkah if it is not hermetically protected from the mice, and he is also not allowed to build a sukkah in such a place. Sources: Arab Rabbi Tashpad in honor of...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I extended this with an extended answer in the situations and sides of the condemned, and the main thing is who it bothers
For him, which includes most people, he is not obliged to be in such a sukkah if it is not protected
Hermetically sealed from the mice, and he is also not allowed to build a sukkah in such a place.

Sources:

Arabs R. H. Tashpad

In honor of the famous, magnificent genius, etc., Rabbi Gamliel Rabinovitz Shalita, I will also walk

His Holiness Rabbi and KTS

I received his letter regarding making a sukkah in place of mice and as we know, several rulings of great teachers on the matter have already been published, and there is no need for me and my demeanor.
And since I am not writing a part of this, I will return to the main points that were explained in the words of the arbitrators in this.

And I am not entering here to discuss the reality of which specific places and what the halachic definition of each and every place is, but what is being discussed is general, what is the law in the way that it is known that there are common mice in the place around the sukkah and by their nature the mice may and may enter the sukkah, and in places whose definition is provided, each and every thing should be discussed and studied.

And here it is clear that a mouse is a miserable animal in the eyes of people today and for ordinary people nowadays they will stay away from staying in the company of a mouse and many people will not agree to eat in the company of this animal, while knowingly spending the night in its company is difficult to find someone who would not care about it.

And in any case, his character has what is mentioned in Gm' Sukkah 26 for the matter of Kiki that he is sorry and is exempt from the Sukkah, and also in Shoa 3 30033, flies and fleas are mentioned and we were the same, and it should not be argued that he is sorry only in the way that he suffers in every moment but also in suffering Whenever the environment is not safe and suffering abounds, there is a reference in the RMA MS concerning thieves, (and a reference in the GM concerning the guardians of pardesim, which is somewhat related to this matter).

And it is not only for the Rabbinical Rabbi who believes that a person can be sorry for something for which there is no way to be sorry. It was brought up in the 20th century in the explanation of the halachic law, but also to divide the opinion of the Rabbinic Rabbi, and in particular here it is clear that the way of the experts of knowledge is to regret it, and the law of the experts is a state. Degm' and ai' in the 20th century.

And from the point of view of the one who says that he is not bothered by mice at all, this is a falsification that there is no exemption, sorry, and as for the one who says that he is not afraid that mice will enter and therefore does not bother him, he should be like the one who is not afraid of thieves in a place where thieves are noted, and I. in 22 C. 17 from SD.

And M.M. Petor Sofim does not permit from the beginning to build a sukkah in such a way that he is freed when he is sorry as explained in Shoa 3. 3034, and the details of the laws are further in the Rama'a and Shnav there.

And it should be noted that a regretful deptor is said not only for the kula but also for the khumra and not only on the first night but also for the other nights. C. Talt s.a., and from the Shnav there, and not only on the part of the person who ate outside of the sukkah, therefore such a sukkah must be avoided completely on the first night meal and in the case of one who abstains and maintains such a sukkah on other nights in any sense there is no mitzvah in this, and in the case of whether one passes a prohibition, depending on whether it is a crime In the same condition as above.

And it is impossible to completely disqualify this sukkah even when there is no other sukkah at all, if it is a sukkah where one can eat there, because in this one is being judged for a sukkah that is suitable for eating and not suitable for sleeping, ibid. And in the rest of the book there and Achmal, and the definition of this sukkah for the matter of eating must be discussed, and it varies from person to person, but a person who is careful can claim that he is also careful about eating because that is the way many people are to be careful, and i.e. what I wrote above about the words of the Rabbi.

And to put the smallest ones in the place of mice if the reality is that there is danger, then it is prohibited to do so because of danger as there was already a practice in this, and the crucifixion is the reality in this and Afi' in a big way when he sleeps in such a place if there is danger in this.

And I saw in the name of the Rabbi Farid Shalita that DLPZ mentioned that a person who has such a sukkah should spend up to five percent of his assets to build a sukkah that will be legally kosher, since without this it is not kosher, and he brought advice there to completely seal the sukkah in such a way that there would be no fear of mice entering to the place, and it is appropriate and desirable to propose the idea to the companies that market sukkas for assembly, so that they can check whether it is possible to manufacture and market such a sukka that is sealed in such a way that there is no fear of mice entering at all.

In conclusion, a sukkah that mice may enter has a fundamental concern about using it in sukkahs either on the first night or on the other nights, and between eating and sleeping, and in some cases the fear is the main reason, unless it does not interfere with him eating and sleeping around mice, in which case it is permissible.

 

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