There are some judges who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touch and sight, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen
There are some umpires who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touching and seeing, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some of the rascals, etc. P for the people of Sephard, and the Ashkenazi people even relax the gesture of affection with additional combinations and there are opinions among the Ashkenazi scribes (from the opinions presented in the Rama'a and Noach) that completely relax.
In the opinion of the Rashba [Shut Ha C. Alef Kafah] the prohibition in his wife is only Nada, and thus the meaning of the Gm' in Berchot 9a and Irubin 18 is that only in a looker there is a prohibition and in the Parshii there it means Demeiri Akaf Afi' in a man's wife, (wm) There is no difficulty from the G.M. Dahari Afi' the prohibition of hoshta banda, which was practiced throughout Israel, its prohibition is not determined by the state of the Dgm 64 and 66. Complete and yet also the use of a woman is prohibited in the Kiddoshin of the Holy Bible and there is a place to include hoshta in the laws of the use of a woman, but it is the same in the Meiri Kiddoshin for the purpose of watering which is the use of affection as explained in the case of Neda in the inscriptions, but from the meaning of the third part of Dekidoshin there it means a rightful act on the part of affection but on the part of all Use, and perhaps it should be divided between the extension of use, such as the one that raises a land registry for him, to the extension of giving from his permission to her, and according to the Shu'a [which will be cited below] use of a woman is prohibited only in the use of affection as explained in the language of Hedia), however due to " 5 [The Hour of the Letters Shear Kof Kedushot HaZivg] 20 to renew the prohibition even in one's wife, and who is the Shela at the end of his words, it is possible that he agreed to the Rashba Aish.
And in the language of the Samak, the commandment of the Lord is not to lecture from his hand near the woman, and there are those who have pointed out according to Rashi Erubin 18, 18, that he recited, we were appointed, and we were the one who looked, as the words of the Hagami, and the Saamik shortened the words of the Hagami, and therefore there is no rai' for our matter. ' Not for the matter of AA (as Parashi who interprets part of the Su' there in the AA) and KS for the matter of a vacant post.
According to the Halacha Shu'a and the Rama'a in Aha 3:16, we discussed some matters of affection, what are their rulings regarding a woman who is not his wife, and the author was stricter than the Rama'a, in all the details of the laws, but even the author there did not mention at all the prohibition of lying, but Only the prohibition of words of affection, and even though the Rama'a brought in his words the above-mentioned words of the Rashba, and there it is mentioned that it is also permissible to reach out. However, the language of the House of Shmuel there on the Rama (in the part where the Rama brought the opinion of the Rashba) that in this he came to allow eating from a bowl and a hand, and the language of the Rama "in all these things" is really a tsa that ends with the L. of the House of Shmuel means that until now he was a party to forbidding hoshta, and a shout that it was not mentioned either in the language of the author or in the language of the Rama, until now he was a party to prohibit hoshta in a woman who is not his wife, but only mentioned things about affection (according to the author) and eating from one bowl (in the first opinion presented in the Rama, which is The opinion of Benjamin Ze'ev and apparently even in Benjamin Ze'ev's face he did not remember to forbid hoshta, [and Shur Bagan Na'ul 13 p. Tia which he brought from some of the latter who learned in Binyamin Ze'ev to forbid hoshta as well, and perhaps this is how the Bish learned as well, and this is the darkest of all]) , and C.E.
And in a hurry it is necessary to say Derek Lafaha Damilta in the explanation of the Rashba's method, even though the main part of what was brought in the RMA was not brought to the matter of this detail of Hushta and M.M. even in the RMA itself it was taught in the MACHSH.
Regarding the custom of the Sephardi today, in practice I have heard different customs regarding this, and even among the Ashkenaz it seems that there is no absolute custom to make it completely easy in raids, and 11 will ask his rabbis.
And Yaoi' in the book makes sense of the parable in the wilderness that brought many sources to this discussion (and many of the sources in this answer are according to what was brought there), and what he brought there in the name of some latter (the thousand shields recited in the name of a greedy and pleasant field for the sight of the firstborn a leaf of Katsag) who commented on the custom that the sun revolves With the fourth species and the women take from his hand and bless, above, there is no evidence from there that the latter prohibited handing at random, it is discussed there about a duty whose essence is to hand to women regularly and continuously and this is a derogatory thing as explained in the Mishnah at the end of Kiddoshin and in the commentaries there, and in particular when it is desired and intended for the sake of a mitzvah that we must inform who does not do a commandment in this but the opposite, so that he does not toil for the sake of heaven in a thing that is the opposite of the honor of heaven.
And Yeovi' to Harb from Butshatash in Ezer Mekodesh AHA C. 122 Delphi the explained in Shoa Yud C. Kase S.D. A handa is allowed to be handed over with her left hand to hand to her husband on the table. Hushta and also belongs to the Hasidic tradition to be careful when it is easy even when there are many people there (A.H., R.L. and in particular when there are many people there then there is no fear of convergence of opinion according to the Mishka who rule on the matter of eating from one bowl where many are eating, but because there really is no convergence there that many people eat, and perhaps from the point of view of convergence, it was touched upon that when there are many there is not so much fear that it will come to convergence of opinion and it is a kind of law of singularity, and the main issue of many is noted in the above-mentioned Rama, and here it was brought to the Torah Zirof), and with the left hand, perhaps a keel in Hasidism well (Eh, and these last two words are not at all clear what he means, and perhaps he means that the one who reaches out with his left hand is a keel for the purpose of those who want to behave according to Hasidism who can rely on it, and he is a keel "well" meaning that he is heard with a margin that can be trusted, and this is the context at the beginning of his words, and perhaps a connecting word is missing at the end of his words, such as "Vodok well" or "Va'inah well" etc.)
And it seems that some have learned in his words that he is talking about the prohibition of handing out right next to what is explained here, but the reference at the beginning of his words will show that the whole thing discussed is about handing out food and drink on the table, what is prohibited in Banda Bedaut Madina, eg. It was understood why the left is allowed since it has no affection for such a change as in Nida, and for the welfare of Damilta mentioned that there are many for whom there is no fear that they will come close after this.
And I. in the book Gan Na'ul, chapter 16, which brought many sources to this matter, and I. I. also what he expanded on the opinion of the Meiri in Barakat there which is fundamental in his opinion as one of the ancient sources that may have prohibited Hoshta AKP in the first place, and I. To allow this
And just to pay things off, I will point out that what is said that the Shua is stricter on this than the RMA is not agreed upon and quite simply because the author is clear in his words that only the deception of affection explained there is prohibited, and the RMA brought several opinions on this and as stated in the title of the book Gan Neul there are a few recent ones who studied the opinion of the Benjaminites Ze'ev (which is the first opinion brought forth in the Rama'a) to forbid all hoshta, but it is really not clear in Benjamin Ze'ev's opinion that eating together from a bowl is a way of affection more than hoshta and has a source in the Gm' to forbid ai' on Shabbat 11 and in Tos' there, and hoshta Afi' banda in This is the agreed upon source from the Hag'm, and in particular that Benjamin Ze'ev's company was destroyed by the Rashba Darev Govria, and in particular that the Rama'a itself does not mean that the custom as Benjamin Ze'ev in his language 2 times what he mentioned regarding the custom, so in fact it is true to the Dina that the Rama'a does not exist More severe than the author.