In the Shoah Jud C. X 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest. And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion, a gift is forbidden...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the Shoa Jud C. X. 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest.
And even if it was normal up until now, this is in the Shekh Skat.

And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion a large gift is prohibited in the stama and not in terms of relinquishment, but if not in his opinion it is also prohibited in a small gift and in the matter of renunciation, and what the Shach mentioned there his house and his slaves a "F in Sogi' it is explained that it is a matter of renunciation, MM it should be said that they were mentioned because it is forbidden there because it is in the parhasiya in the Shoah, as here in a gift from his mind.

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

If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer. Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving and after all he was appointed as Kishoin custodian...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer.

Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving, and he was appointed as a Kishoin guard who already paid him his wages and his wages and appointed him as an idle laborer, etc., but if he actually earns exactly the same At the moment there is no reason according to Halacha to pay Shabbat to an employee on sick days.

But it is necessary to discuss Shabbat payments to the employer, whether the employer can demand this, since according to the standard the employer should have received work at that time and paid for it, and in practice he is paying normal wages without actually receiving work, and all of this was caused by the tortfeasor, and there was room to discuss the arguments of Physical in such a way that the damage is certain if you defined it as physical according to the definitions of physical explained in the arbitrators.

However, there is a place to bring a rai' different from the law of a Hebrew slave who harms his body, he pays Shabbat to his Lord [Bk 16:11] and if you say because a Hebrew slave his body is bought [Kiddoshin 16:11] MM, then also with regard to his daughter I say In the B.C. there [Paz 12] the person who has the bond pays Shabbat to her father, and it is also ruled in the Shoah C. Takhd 66 [ACP in the way that the deeds of her hands belong to her father] and the reason is because the deeds of her hands belong to her father According to Parash'i there, and not because of his right to be known [Ya'oi' there in the Gm that it is proven that it is not because of her right to be known, since the sentence there is also for the days between girlhood and matriculation, and it is also proven from the sentence in the Rama'a in Houm there in a way that is not close to the sending of Her father, since God is in his hand for the known, and yet I have run out of other works of hands, and also for such things, evidence must be brought from what the law is also in this 7, and who is Yaoi' Kiddoshin 4 12 and Dok, however the above evidence is clear that what vindicates The Shabbat for her father is his right for her handiwork], so it turns out that the person who pre-purchased another person's handiwork for a period of time and then harmed that worker, the harming person will have to pay Shabbat to the employer and pay for it.

And I looked at the book Pethai Hoshen 11:10, Damages, Chapter 11, Section 10, and in the comment there and brought up there several sides and options in the form of payment, but the main points of his words are as I wrote that the tortfeasor shall pay the employer for the damage he caused, and when the tortfeasor directly pays the Shabbat payments to the employee, the employer shall pay The employee only has the difference in this, and in his conclusion it seems to him that the main thing is that it is like an insurance company that the employer pays the salary to the employee as insurance premiums and the injured party pays the employer what they damaged as they decide on an insurance matter and we were like that.

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

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

Below are some ideas that can help those who see themselves being helped by them (and these things are intended in advance only for those who are looking to distance themselves from technology as will be explained below). First of all, you need to know that most of the work in practice is to avoid obstacles and waste of time, which by technology is the removal of experience from us, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Below are some ideas that can help those who see themselves being helped by them (and these things are intended in advance only for those who are looking to distance themselves from technology as will be explained below).

First of all, you need to know that most of the work in practice is to avoid an obstacle and waste of time, which by technology is the removal of experience from us, since no person has yet been created for whom the encounter with this will not harm him at all, whether by wasting time, whether by being cold, whether by content, etc., therefore the main and primary solution is to build For himself technical fences that will separate and differentiate man from technology.

And here, of course, the initial thing is to make sure that in everyday life there will be no access to this space, but apart from that, everyone from the place they are can make sure that they have less and less access to these tools, and everyone can also add safeguarding both the amount of time and the limited content, and the quality of the restriction, Because this is the majority of the work to take care of the technical matters and the fences, because from there on the man's powers are limited to them.

Therefore, for example, in Alma, I will say that it is necessary for necessary reasons to subscribe to a computer room, and he has the option of subscribing to a computer room near or far, it is better for him to avoid subscribing to a nearby place if it could cause him to try to log in to check the updates all the time, and also when there is an option to An extended or reduced package is better to pay each time for a small package that will include the use of the same one this time, than an extended package, even if it seems that he will lose money from it, and sometimes there will be an opposite issue such as there is an attempt to bring internet into the home and then there will be an opposite issue for a short period of time to make it easier To use a computer room that will be a substitute for the house, until he can gradually reduce it, and everything according to the case.

Also regarding various solutions that exist for obtaining all kinds of Internet updates not through the Internet, such as lines for listening to incoming email, if it comes to save and prevent physical use of the Internet (such as until now he had Internet and is currently replacing the Internet with this type of solution) what is good, but if It is up to him to decide whether he should or not, surely it is better without it, since surely those who use these services in the end make him actually consume more of the Internet than those who do not use these services, and things are simple.

And a person who is in any situation at the point of his situation can make as many technical fences as possible that will block him from using these things wherever he is, for example someone who has a neighbor with a hot spot who should talk to the neighbor as soon as possible to close the hot spot, and to this they said if I don't have it, who has it And if not now when, and yes if he has any possibility to open an Internet from home, there are many ideas to add fences and fences so that he doesn't come across as an attempt, because this is the main area of control that we have left to deal with the technical aspect of access to these tools and to prevent the possibility of access as much as possible.

The second thing is that you should know that usually and in the absolute majority of cases, no harm will happen if the child immediately and decisively removes the internet from the house, and in most cases the benefit that you will get from this is far greater than the minimal disadvantage of it, and even if he does not manage to endure it, but it is still worth trying, Because as long as he manages to hold on, it's worth it, and even if he doesn't manage to hold on, but there is a limit to how many times he will try until he succeeds, whether twice, three or ten times until he finally succeeds, but in order to go through this process, you need a first and a second time. "20, and if he gives up before the first time, then he will never reach the goal and will never start the process at all.

And another thing is that it is worthwhile and worthwhile to always remain in a state of action in this matter, that is, to be in an active action of avoidance and fences and reservations in this regard, because after the actions the hearts are drawn, and this affects the subconscious and a commandment entails a commandment, therefore every small or large action that a person does to distance himself from this thing benefits the person as a whole and places him in a higher place, and God said, open an opening for me, etc., and if a person tries consistently for a period of time every day to take care of something simple technical that will help him stay away from these tools, every day with something else small, after a while he will find himself in a completely different place.

And here, in all the things here, there is no question at all about what the definition of the charges is, in that everything I have written is only good advice for those who have already made up their minds who want to wean themselves off technology, and there will be more in Rabbi Binyamin Finkel's book Restarting, but who wants to know what the charges are that he is obligated by Halacha, and to behave Only as committed, he will make a wise question.

And all of the above does not absolve us from the great war when we need to use one or another use through the network, and at any time one or another experience, to save as much as possible, and the wise article presented in the duties of the hearts that said you have returned from the small war and now you have the great war, so After a person has made all the possible reinforcements for himself, the main point of the experience and also the final gain is to be kept in practice during the trial, and the most complete repentance at that time, etc. (the end of the day).

And it's true that this guidance does not belong to the column here because the main things discussed in this column are matters of Halacha and legal obligations, and here it is a short article of good advice and ideas for a person to upgrade himself and bring himself to a higher place and is intended for those who want it and are looking for it to reach a higher and more exalted level than just Humans, and I wish we won.

And at first I was afraid to write a tutorial on the subject because everyone has something to correct and who will say I won my heart and decorate yourself first, but I said since I have something to say don't hesitate, and if there is someone it could benefit them and it would be my reward.

Whoever sees himself as someone who does not need this guidance at all, then this means that he is in a much higher rank than the rest of us, and of course he does not need this guidance, and in BH I had the privilege of meeting dear people who have no affiliation and access to any of these tools without any exaggeration.

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

The Halacha is stated in the Shu'a that every way Hinoch shall not take, and if a burden is not returned without a sign, and if there is no sign, he has won it, but here there is a sign of place since it is known in the cell of which stander it was placed, and in a way that is obvious where it was placed, this is a sign as explained in the Shu'a. ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is a halacha in the Shu'a that every way Hinoch shall not take, and if a burden is not returned without a sign, and if there is no sign, he has won it, but here there is a sign of a place since it is known in the cell of which stander it was placed, and in a way that is obvious where it was placed, this is a sign as explained in the Shu'a.
And Haka claimed that since the person sitting there claims that he is not from him, it follows that someone raised him from the ground and condemned him as someone who has no sign of place, and I am puzzled by his reasoning, how it is possible to hang a koala like that, except as in every way of Hinoh there are no hangings that are raised from the floor Here, because even here there is no lack of examples and ways that someone might place a bill there even if he is not sitting there, such as it can be hung that stands have been moved or that someone has left for someone to take from there or in any other way.

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

If there is actual supervision of the soul, he can enter the house and does not have to pay any extra charge in a normal case, and he must be careful not to ravish his eyes from the house, for which he does not have permission, and in a place where accommodation costs money, such as a cafe where accommodation is paid for, as well as if the rabbi asks for blood. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אם יש פיקוח נפש ממשי יכול להיכנס לבית ואינו צריך לשלם עכ"פ במקרה רגיל, ויזהר שלא לזון עיניו מן הבית, שעל זה אין לו רשות, ובמקום שעולה כסף שהות, כגון בית קפה שמשלמים על שהות, וכן אם בעה"ב מבקש דמים סבירים כשוי ההנאה צריך לשלם לו, אבל אם אין ידוע לו שבעה"ב מבקש א"צ לחשוש לזה.
And in the sources there are more details on this.

Sources: According to the KIL halacha, it is permissible to save himself with his friend's money if the survivor pays his friend who owns the money for his loss [Hom Shant 4 and Shem Shaf 3], therefore if there is a real fear of PKON here, too, it would be permissible to save himself by entering the house His friend, and even though he is using his house and there is evidential damage from it, he will still be allowed to enter, unless we find that they have divided between damage and damage which is explained in the rulings that it is permissible to damage his friend for the purpose of saving himself only and he will pay him later "B and Tor HOM Shant].

But in our case, since the person who afterwards returns the object in its entirety, apparently in a normal case, will not even have to pay, since here it is a permanent court for the Agra, and as for the fact that there are only permanent houses for the Idna for the Agra [RAMA Homum Shasg 6] but not in such a way as to hide in a house for a few minutes, unless otherwise known.

אבל אם הוה קאי לאגרא אין לטעון דמעיקרא בתורת גזילה אתא לידיה, שהגזילה הותרה לו לצורך פקו"נ ולא יצטרך לשלם, אין לטעון כן, דבתוס' ב"ק ריש דף צז מבואר בלאו הכי דבקרקע לא אמרי' סברא זו ורק במטלטלין וכן מבואר בשו"ע סי' שסג החילוק בין קרקע למטלטלין, ואמנם ברמ"א שם ס"ו מבואר דבגזילת קרקע כשבא להשיב הקרקע אינו חייב לשלם מלבד הקרקע ולא שכר בטלתה, היינו רק אם לא נהנה ממנו כמבואר בבהגר"א שם, והנגזל תובע דמי ביטול הקרקע שהיה יכול להשכיר בינתיים, אבל אם נהנה מן הקרקע משלם עליו הנאתו בדקיימא לאגרא.

ויש לציין דדעת כמה ראשונים שאפי' קלב"מ שפטור בנזיקין חייב בשכירות [ר"ת בספר הישר מובא במאירי בב"ק ובראב"ד ורשב"א בב"מ], ויהיה קצת דחוק לומר דקלב"מ חייב בשכירות ופטור בנזיקין ומציל עצמו בממון חבירו יהיה חייב בנזיקין ופטור משכירות, וכן מבואר בסוגי' דלהלן בדין משטה וכו', שאפשר לבקש דמי שכירות, וממילא גם בקיימא לאגרא משמע בפשוטו שיצטרך לשלם.

And regarding what is here, evidentiary damage does not belong to tashmin Efi' If damage is caused by the evil eye, there is no compensation in the evil eye in human law, since it is damage that is not apparent and was not intentional, nor can it be made liable under the laws of heaven, since there is no proven damage, and it is appropriate to appease him in this, and is also made liable when it is found Namely not to look anywhere in the house since the law of damage to evidence includes the law of not looking even when one can actually look, and as explained in the RMA in the Kand Sof sg.
And it is true that there is a law in the years that the official who came out in the laws of heaven to pay to both of them in the ways explained in the C.S.
And the Nidd belongs to C. Ea SI by saying I don't know if you robbed you and there is no plaintiff's claim against him, there is no obligation to leave by the hand of Heaven (and it is possible that the plaintiff's claim against the evil eye does not belong, if he claims that you stole with the evil eye, unless he tells me that such and such happened And the wise man said that if his words are true, it must have been caused by the evil eye, and then it is possible that there is a good claim by the plaintiff, and there is still room to discuss the part of the theft that came, that the thief knew that it was necessary to return the money, when he did not feel what he did for about an hour, and it is possible that he was not fined. to come out of heaven, and you have to settle for it).

And then a person will do everything he can to avoid this, since this act is very indecent to enter his friend's house without his permission.

and MMM precisely in such a way that there is a definition of PKON here, such as in a place where people are injured and killed by the bombs, but in places where there is no obvious danger and the local people are not careful to enter a protected space every time or the person fleeing himself at other times is not used to being careful about this, and revealed his opinion that he is not This is according to the Law of Israel (Ea 22 4 12, and 12 Shabbat Kakad 12, and 12 Ketovit 9), and only now that he hears an alarm wants to use this permit to enter his friend's house, not simply to allow such a.

And in the manner of 72 there and telling him that he agrees to enter only if he pays him, apparently he can ask for money, but only as much as this hospitality is worth, and even if he has committed to more he can say Meshte I was with you as explained in Hom Resad, 7.
But in a way that he did not agree with the above-mentioned law.
ואפילו אם לבו נוקפו אם מחוייב לשלם או לא, יש לומר דמ"מ באופן שלא פגש כלל את הבעה"ב ואינו תובע כסף להדיא, א"צ שיהיה לבו נוקפו מספק, כיון דדעת בני אדם אינו לבקש כסף באופן כזה, ודומה למה שנתבאר לדעת הש"ך וכמה פוסקים דבאופן שמסתבר שדרך חבירו למחול א"צ לבקש ממנו להדיא.

And by the way, Orchan Yeavi' in Rama Shaseg 66, Dach, that he enjoys this and it is not lacking Aa Lakof in Bb of Maikara that he will agree since God can rent it out and does not want to, therefore it is not Kofin to do it for free, and there was a place to study in the Nidad Kofin To do it for free, since at best he can use his house, and only the convict if he pays, and therefore since it is unsustainable for Agra and Nidd to use it, he will not be able to ask for it anyway, but this calculation is not correct, of course he can ask for money whenever he wants Then the yard will be changed to a permanent yard for Agra, and all the condemned man will never ask for the money, and only the condemned man if he can be forced to give the yard to be used without money, since the most debauchery does not ask for money, on the part of a prisoner on the level of Sodom, but in a way that asks for money and is allowed to ask Money, there is nothing like Sodom about it.

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

can get out of the way of the question by having B ask additional doctors and do according to them. Sources: the law Since the Ghid again does not repeat and say, the arbitrators differed in several places if they say this law, such as in the testimony of invalid testimony and in loyalty that is outside of the Bad, and in the testimony of Isorin and in the testimony that is faithful. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Can get out of the question by having B ask additional doctors and they will do as they please.

Sources: The law, since the teacher does not repeat the teacher again, the judges differed in several places if they say this law, such as in the testimony of invalid witnesses and faithfulness that is outside of the Bible, and in the testimony of those who are forbidden and in the testimony that is faithful from the law in his hand, and 11 that everywhere they say, and Afi' in the Gentiles of Messiah according to his end they were divided The latter if they say it because he said, etc.
And I. in detail in the Talmudic encyclopedia Kach roughly since he said that they brought all the words of the scribes in this.

However, there is an argument here that since the person is not responsible for his words, he must be lying in one of them, so it is difficult to believe and trust him, and even though it is not the main point of an opinion since he said, after all, this argument is usually a reason to believe his first words. to say that I will not rely on him.

MM because Davidini is a business person and the doctor is clearly not responsible, and even though there is a place to sit down and discuss the issues and discuss if KIL, since he said on various matters, such as in the Shoah's commentary on the testimony of his daughter's sanctification, and it is also necessary to discuss Davgm in Yoma, for the decision of a doctor. And regarding the matter of umdana, it is explained in the arbitrators that there is no such thing, since the Ghid does not repeat and divulge again (cf. Zin Hakadshim Kg 3 and Shu'at Beit Ephraim AHA Kg 3), and here in the Nidd it is possible that it is not Umdna but a law from the Salat or a law of a craftsman who does not harm her art, and also It must be discussed from the side that excuses his speech by saying that at first he did not check KC A. BM 20 EB and Tor and B. HOM C. 20, and it must also be discussed from Damari's side that he didn't clear it, we thought until he was wrong because he did not check for a benign, ai 'Sanhedrin 12 12, and one must also assert a valid argument for what I did not say in this, since he said, etc. ' Megillah 27 PB] and in truth do not say' who repeats and says [i.e. Hom 29] ACP if his speech is excused.

MM in the Nidd, which is a pkoun and can be easily ascertained, therefore it is appropriate to be wary of different opinions and methods and because we imagine we will do something [Gitin 19], and for this one should ask other doctors, and in the pkoun Izali' another two doctors against one doctor as explained In Och C. Tarih SG Efi' to say that one should not eat, (even though there is a division between estimation and testimony, and here it must be argued that it is not estimation, mm even if one witness seems to be faithful, but also for one is invalid two faithful witnesses are invalid against him as explained How much did I go astray and misbehave, and yet in such a way that B would ask doctors from Mn that they can be trusted).

And I also asked GRA Farid in the same way that in the meantime they asked three other doctors and they said that there is no pulse if you can rely on the ZA and ruled that it is possible to do so.

And if AA asks other doctors and it is a time of great pressure, if apparently true words are evident, his last words should be trusted in a way that excuses his words first and foremost with the truth, not as above why he was wrong.

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

Allowed because it is not real money. Sources: This is what he wrote in the book Or Lezion, and so on in the Gershza, but according to Rabbi Hagrank, even though it is permissible from the point of view of the law, it is appropriate not to accustom them to this.

Allowed because it is not real money.

Sources: This is what he wrote in the book Or Lezion, and so on in the Gershza, but according to Rabbi Hagrank, even though it is permissible from the point of view of the law, it is appropriate not to accustom them to this.

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