Yes, there is a prohibition in this, as explained in the Mishnah Klaiim PO MG 3 MD and Rambam PO Mehl' Klaiim 12 and Sho'a Yod C. Rezzo 67, and EI in Gm' PK Deirobin, and A. Berambam names the particulars of the laws in this and in the way of faith.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Yes, there is a prohibition in this, as explained in the Mishnah Klaiim PO MG 3 MD and Rambam PO Mehl' Klaiim 12 and Sho'a Yod C. Rezzo 67, and EI in Gm' PK Deirobin, and A. Berambam names the particulars of the laws in this and in the way of faith.

And I will note that I have seen in the yard of a family of devout and whole people who have a roof over their yard on which there are model grape branches and under the roof other kinds of trees and it never occurred to them that the law should be checked regarding the growth of trees under this roof, and they see from this that vigilance is needed to notice that there are halachic problems (And there are some types of plants that are allowed, etc., in the book of Sde Ezekiel 12:6, which Tuba extended in this).

And regarding your question about how the pot that is not named stands in the vineyard, in the answer next to it I mentioned the words of the mishna in the kalaim and the judges who forbade the pot that is not named, and also in the innovations of R. Guttmacher Kalaim 17 MH Damasus his conclusion that if the pot is standing in the vineyard it is certainly prohibited, and regarding the matter of moving a pot that is not named In Karam A.S. M.S.H.C. in this (and A. B. Explanation of the Halacha of the Way of Faith P. 23 according to the opinion of Rabbi Cyrilio and the Hazo'a it is forbidden and the other P.D. of the latter may be permissible), and A. Yerushalmi Hala P.B. Sahab and Rambam 55 of the 10th of the 13th century and the simplicity of the Yerushalmi in the kalaim spaz apparently that even a pot that is not named is in general a prohibition that transgresses the Ish.

And apparently it does not turn out that daffiirot (a model vine on a shed) is a keel from the DA class of a vineyard or to the work of a single vine for the purpose of setting up a pot that is not named, and even if it is said that daffiirot is a cutting for a cutting (according to what the above-mentioned way of belief has suggested in the opinion of the latter For the matter of moving a pot that is not named) mm under the vine itself which is Dauriita of course there is no place to allow it.

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

This fundamentally must not be done, but where there is a great need and there is no other choice, the change should be facilitated for the sake of humanity, but not in the form of a proposal but of local coverage only. Mekorot: Here is this law of the prohibition of reaching out in person is not agreed upon in the Rabbis that it is forbidden from...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

This fundamentally must not be done, but where there is a great need and there is no other choice, the change should be facilitated for the sake of humanity, but not in the form of a proposal but of local coverage only.

Sources: Here, this law of the prohibition of handing in person is not agreed upon in the Rabbis that it is prohibited by the law of the Rambam Shari and A. in Ur Zero, and 26 if what is condemned here is in the form of a shot, which according to some judges is easier than handing [Rashbat 13 Noah, honest 3 in the Hagat Yod Kase 9 and from the Rikash on the Shu'a there], and in this there was a place to discuss what the law is for the need, but here there is a concern about an additional prohibition of the offering of the bed, which is prohibited by the state, for example, and how can we allow such a thing to be justified according to the place The need, and we also noted in palpation of the pulse, the Rama model did not allow [end of 17] except in place of a PKON, although there was no reason to propose a solution that would cover it without bedding but by covering it locally as if that was enough, but even in this Efi' is nothing but a stretch After all, the arbitrators of our time resorted to getting worse at the hoshta afi' in times of distress, and among them the AGM and the Shabal and the OLC Dela Kahtzitz Eliezer [cit. He permitted it for the purpose of a mitzvah by throwing, but to Didan Danhgi', like the Rama'a who forbids throwing, that there is no reason to say Daha Efi' for the purpose of a mitzvah, and so many of the latter and the arbitrators of our time not to make it easy [which include the House of Yitzchak and the ways of repentance and the tribe of Levi and a few other arbitrators, see MM on this in the Treasury of Halacha on the Shu'a, end 2], and I also saw that some recent scholars have discussed the matter of a soma that can assist him in walking by changing it with a stick and where there is a fear that he will fall, she can trust him [cit. Ibid., p. Kalez], and some have weighed instead of financial loss to seize a measure in a way that is not extended [ibid., p. Kamb], and 26:21 that there is respect for humanity, and it should be reminded a little of the law of a ring in the Kiddushi Nada, which the judges discussed what to do and how to do it and " 9, and I mentioned this only as a branch, since there are many opinions on this, and it should also be noted what many recent scholars have clarified regarding sick use that is permitted, because there is no danger in it [cf. that there is no state in the ZMAZ in the sick, we note that the Sages lightened several things, as well as in respect of humanity, and since the latter saw the new lightening in the 23 The same also in the Nidd with a change and without touching and without a proposal and in a way that will be explained in the Soma as above.

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