הנה יש כאן כמה נידונים וכדלהלן: הנידון הראשון האם כדור שעשוי בזמנינו הוא מוקצה הוא לא, ובזה הארכתי בתשובה הקודמת (מק"ט 6425). והנידון השני הוא האם ראוי לאנשים גדולים לשחק בשבת בכדור. ובפוסקים [ערוך השלחן סי' ש ס"ע] הביאו דברי ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here are some discussed here and as follows:
The first issue is whether a ball made in our time is allocated, it is not, and I extended this in the previous answer (MKT 6425).

And the second issue is whether it is proper for big people to play ball on Saturday.
And in the judges [Aruch HaShalchan C.S.S.A.] the words of the Yerushalmi [Ta'anit P.D. 55] and the Midrash lamented [B.D.] that one goat was destroyed because they used to play ball with it on Shabbat, and he also wrote in Shu'at Shlomat Chaim [C. Rafah ] that it is not appropriate to do this excessively.

And the third issue is whether or not a paved area is prohibited at all, and in this the question is divided into two issues, what is the rule of playing on a paved area inside the house and what is the rule of playing on a paved area outside the house.

ובמשנ"ב סי' שח ס"ק קנח חילק בזה בין שלא ע"ג קרקע שבתוך הבית לשמחוץ לבית דברה"ר יש לחשוש שיצא מחוץ לד"א ויבוא להעבירו, ולכן התיר רק בתוך הבית ורק שלא ע"ג קרקע, דאילו ע"ג קרקע יש לחשוש שיבוא ליישר את הקרקע ויעבור על איסור חורש או בונה [תלוי היכן יישור הקרקע מתבצע, ובנידון דידן שנאמר בעיקר כלפי בית, שם החיוב בשבת על יישור קרקע הוא מדין בונה].

(ולגבי שטח מרוצף בתוך הבית אם נחשב ע"ג קרקע או לא, הנה המשנ"ב שם חילק בין ע"ג קרקע לבין שלא ע"ג קרקע, דע"ג קרקע יש בו משום אשויי גומות ושלא ע"ג קרקע אין בו משום אשוויי גומות, ולא נזכר שם להדיא דין מרוצף אם נחשב ע"ג קרקע או שלא ע"ג קרקע, אבל פוסקי זמנינו נחתו לנידון זה, ואמנם אינו מוסכם, אבל כ"ה פשטות דעת רוב פוסקי זמנינו שבתוך הבית אם הוא מרוצף אין גזירת אשויי גומות ולא חשיב כע"ג קרקע, ויעוי' שמירת שבת כהלכתה פרק טז ובמה שהביאו בביאורים ומוספים על המשנ"ב שם בשם הגריש"א והשבט הלוי).

And the fourth condemned is playing the ball in a way that may cause desecration of Shabbat, such as having partners in the game or spectators who arrive on Shabbat outside the boundaries or with a vehicle, or photographing the game and the road in such a way that it is public and leads to desecration of Shabbat.
And this is a very serious thing, (and there is a letter from one of Israel's great men against playing football on Shabbat, brought in the observance of Shabbat according to the law, chapter 16, section 9 in the note).

And even going to see Shabbat blasphemies for pleasure is forbidden [Halacha Commentary C. Sha Sabb].

And the fifth issue is whether playing at all is proper and correct and permissible for adults [from a leadership point of view] and I. 17 18 EB and O'H C. Shach St. 7 and the Shem of the Bible Shem Sknat and the Shem of the Bible C. Takih Sat, And the things are explained in their place in their sources.

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

למנהג בני אשכנז אינו מוקצה (רמ"א או"ח סי' שח סמ"ה), ולמנהג בני ספרד הדבר אינו ברור כלל. וגם להנוהגים היתר בזה אבל אין ראוי לגדולים לשחק בו כמו שאכתוב בתשובה הסמוכה. מקורות: השו"ע [שכמותו נוהגים בני ספרד] שם פסק שהוא ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

For the custom of the Ashkenazi people it is not allocated (Rama Och 3. Shah Sama), and for the custom of the Sephardic people this is not clear at all.
And also for those who overdo it, but it is not appropriate for adults to play with it as I will write in the adjacent answer.

Sources: The Shu'a [which the people of Spain follow] there ruled that it is assigned, and according to the simplicity of the words of the Mishnav, the name of the Sek Kanz is also in today's balls, since the Mishnav wrote there that what is appropriate to play in does not give him a tool to expropriate from it Allocated, although in the name of the tribe of Levi [Havat 3. 18] and the Gershza [in Yitzchak read on the Mishnav there] and the Gersha [Sabbaths of Yitzchak mokset 55 letter 1] it was brought that our balls are not allocated.
Although in Or Lezion [Heb 56 Tshuva 8] he made it worse.
And I. in a second thread [Hg Pasha SKA] who wrote several sides to this, and also according to him in his conclusion it is not clear the permission for today's bullets for the people of Sephard, Ish.

It was found that since what is being discussed here is the people of Sephardi who follow the instructions of the Rabbis of Sephardi and they have made it worse and since the Mishnav, silencing his words means making it worse, so it is a bit pressing to allow the Shofis for the Sephardim today, but surely the Mekil has something to rely on, in particular that it is a Durbanan who due Scribes have to go after the mikyl, and in particular the Rama'a Efi' bullets that in their time should be permitted and this, and the opinion of the Rama and his assistant should also be attached to the people of Sephard where the opinion of the author is not clear, and in particular a simple sabra would seem to make it easier since it has a tool theory and there is It has a known and defined use.

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

There are several issues discussed here: a) Is a night garment required to wear a tzitzit if worn during the day - on this there is a disagreement between Rambam and the Rabbi, and the ruling of the Halacha is to be afraid of the Rambam's opinion that it is obligatory not to wear a night garment during the day without a tzitzit 18 S. K. B.] 2) ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There are several discussed here:
A) Does a night garment require a tzitzit if worn during the day - in this there is a dispute between the Rambam and the Rabbis, and the ruling of the Halacha is to fear the Rambam's opinion that it is obligatory not to wear a night garment during the day without a tzitzit [Mishnav C. 18 SKB ].

2) Is a garment that can only be worn by covering up at night considered a garment - there is a dispute as to whether it is considered a garment or not, and the Mishnav Sakhh ruled that one round horn should be made to exempt a tzitzit, but the ruling is only for a garment made of wool, but for a garment made of other Kinds (which to many arbitrators is only a matter of encouragement) the Mishnab took the view that it should not be made more strict, and the Chazua Och C. 3 SQL 20 that the mikyl has something to rely on [even in woolen clothing, p. 2 Name SIA, and as to whether it is a garment that is only used to cover the sleep of Yom Yayo', below is what I will write about it].

C) The third issue is that it should not be said that such a garment that is not intended for wearing is not a garment, but if it changes its use in a one-time fashion, it should be discussed whether it is then considered a garment, and then it will be obligated as we require the tzisit of a garment day and night (which the Rambam is afraid to say) ), on the other hand it should be said that there regarding a garment for a night on the day of Rambam's opinion that it does not change at all the time of the main wearing of the garment but the time of actual wearing of the garment.

And Yaoi' in the Chazu'a there at the end of the Skala that he wrote to divide between important ephemeral and lowly ephemeral times, (that the Shu'a's method regarding night sheets that are worn during the day is lowly ephemeral and not blood for a dishcloth that sometimes the big one wraps himself in is an important ephemeral), and because of this he explained why a sheet which is mainly for the night and only used at the end of his sleep on an exempt day [for opinions that a nightgown is also exempt during the day] since the use that is used during the day is low temporary use, and in our case there is no such official and designated use (using a blanket as a game and wrapping oneself in it) that is considered low temporary use , and yet according to the opinions that a garment of mere covering, such as a bed sheet, is not considered God's garment, even when once he puts it on his body through clothing as a game, it will be considered lowly temporary.

And so according to the Chazu'a the one who makes light of the sheets has someone to trust here as well, the one who makes the light has someone to trust (since the definition of this type of use according to the above-mentioned Hazu'a is as low moments, therefore in fact it is no more serious than a night sheet that lasts for the day, And since there are two conjunctions there, one conjunction which is essentially a night garment and a second conjunction which is not a way of clothing, MM here GAC is not a way of clothing according to the calculation explained and GAC is not a day garment just like there, and there will be more expansion of words next to this in this), and according to the Mishnav in other species there will be an exemption, and in the garment of the wool of the advice one who can get rid of it if he cannot make a round horn is to abandon the blanket (cf. in the answer to MKT 4843 which begins a man who fears, etc. with the letter 5).

You have completed and clarified some things

And there was a reason to argue and say that what is considered bad use of a blanket according to the Hazu'a is only because the beginning of the actual use is at night, but here that the beginning of use is during the day, there will be no exemption for bad use and a tzisit will be required, but according to this it will be found that if one occasionally uses a blanket for sleeping during the day it will be prohibited, And apparently, it is an unusual innovation to the law, to say according to the opinions that it is permissible only whenever the use begins at night; VIL'A (VIL' below is the conclusion of the matter in this regard).

And perhaps the intention of the Chazoa should be clarified in a different way, by using a lowly usage, its intention is to include the fact that there is no finished form of wearing, although the Chazoa aims at dividing this into the opinions presented in MA and MAB that consider such a covering to be wearable, MM admits that it is considered a lowly use for the purpose of not For this reason, it will be considered a day garment, that is, in addition to what is mainly for night and in addition that has no important use during the day, and according to this reason, if worn on the way from clothing (which also belongs to the way of clothing as a blanket, a person wraps himself in a kilah and a sackcloth and goes out to the Rhar, for the purpose of spending Shabbat, and the latter We discussed the matter of a towel).
And if that is the intention of the Chazoa, there will be no permit regarding Didan.

However, I really looked again at the language of the hazu'a and it is explained to him that the consideration of low use during the day is because the meaning worn during the day continues from the night's sleep, and therefore it has no importance for daytime clothing, as long as the wearing is only for the sake of the night (and a garment that is made to cover a day's sleep in a random, official way, it became worse in the prediction "A to himself as an expert on the laws and practices), and yet it must be said that he is still not obligated to wear a tzitzit if worn once a day, since the definition of this garment is for night time, he is again not obligated to tzitzit on this garment at all even during the day.

However, after studying the words of the Chazua, all these words of the Chazua refer only to the beginning of the sentence that this garment is exempt from the Rash because it is a night garment, but they do not refer at all to what the Rambam's opinion is about such a garment.

And it would be an addition to the Hazu'a opinion to say that according to the party there is no way to wear such a garment that is only made for covering (that is, the opinion that the Mishnav ruled similar to in the case of other species), therefore anyone who does not have an official temporary use of such a garment will not be required to wear a tzisit.

And really, one more thing should be added. What the hazu'a brought evidence is from what DKIL in terms of clothing, in their opinion, a large one goes to the market, and there it is not enough that they were worn at random but that they were worn at random in the market, and yet it does not belong at all in the matter of his discussion regarding the one who wraps himself in a blanket in the game, and therefore If there was an apparently official random device, he still wouldn't have to wear a tassel.

Regarding the ruling on clothing as a cover for sleeping, the Mishnab's ruling to ease other species and the Chazu's ruling that the main rule should be eased, but this is only in conjunction with the fact that it is a night garment and the beginning of use at night (the Chazu's ACP reminded Lahdia of this opinion in the previous section), But a covering garment that is used for daytime sleep has less room to make light of it, since there are no such additions here, and as for the matter of a blanket that does not belong at all to the use of the garment, it is dealt with differently and as will be explained.

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

If it bothers him only because he is not sensible, most of the judges forbid it, unless he wants to invite guests and is ashamed to let them in there, and if the noise bothers him by nature, there is a reason to allow it when the baby may cause noise in the game, and of course when he is noisy it is permissible to take him out. ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it bothers him only because he is not sensible, most of the judges forbid it, unless he wants to invite guests and is ashamed to let them in there, and if the noise bothers him by nature, there is a reason to allow it when the baby may cause noise in the game, and of course when he is noisy it is permissible to take him out.

Sources: There are several discussions here to discuss the permission of the necessity of its place, the first is whether a disturbance of the sanctity of the Sabbath is a necessity of its place, b) is a disturbance of a voice a necessity of its place, c) is a disturbance that is not directly from the object but comes by the baby's approach to the object is considered when removing the The object as a remover for the purpose of its place, and here regarding the first sentence, our contemporary arbitrators discussed regarding an assigned object that is in a meal and interferes because it does not create a Sabbath atmosphere (the so-called "Shabbatdig" in Ashkenazi language), and most of them resorted to prohibiting it (see 22 No, Arhot Shabbat 19:15, and comments and additions on Shacha 15), therefore if the assignee does not disturb the person by nature at all but only that it is not honoring Shabbat, this should not be permitted, but in the event that the assignee makes a noise that actually disturbs and robs the rest of the household, we enter into this To discuss whether the disturbance of a voice is necessary for its place, and the decision in this the judges wrote that such disturbance is also considered to be necessary for its place (see the Gerach and Gera Auerbach in the book and Yom Shabbat 23:17, and in the book Arhot Shabbat 19:27 et seq. 75, and Bezou Mag.
7. Prevention of damage is also considered a necessity in its place, and A. next to it), and M.M. is not exactly similar to what the rulings condemn on a disturbing alarm clock, since here the disturbance in it is caused by the assignee and not directly by the assignee, but even in this it means considering a necessity in its place, p. Barachot Shabbat 19 , 20, and in note 15 what he brought there, and see also from Shnab Shia, 13, regarding the matter of exhuming a dead body for the purpose of priests, and from the 20th century, there is talk of things that at any moment interfere with the Shachak here, but from what On an assignee who may cause damage the fence of the permit is necessary for its place, this means that the necessary permit does not have to be in place at that actual moment, but rather what makes it difficult to stay there when damage may occur, and from the above damage is a stronger pretext for interference, but also with regard to interference To say that it makes it difficult for a person to sit in a place where there may be a disturbance, but even in Nidd, if you take the assigned while it is noisy, there is no need to worry.
And with regard to guests, the Gersha ordered the same on the Sabbath there, and see also Bararhot Shabbat 19 note Med in the name of the Gersha, and see Shlohan Shlomo Shekh Ski 2.
And it is possible to add that if they disturb and grieve what is not a Shabbat atmosphere until it is difficult for him to eat there in that also it is considered as if there are guests, since according to Hashaba Ho' in the rulings a definition of the necessity of his place is mentioned that he must vacate the place in order to be there.

!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