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.

Sources:
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.

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

permitted. Sources: 22 Morar in the Purification Watch 3. end of SKNAT, and also brought by Amor Shalita in the building of a faithful house that there are permits, and . In the glory of the purity p. 15, and in the file Mza Haim p. . .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

permitted.
Sources: 22 Morar in the Purification Watch 3. end of SKNAT, and also brought by Amor Shalita in the building of a faithful house that there are permits, and . In the glory of the purity 55th, and in the collection found Haim p.m., and I will not duplicate all the mm in this, I will just briefly point out that the things become clear since the source of prohibiting lying down in her bed is not from the Gm but from the Geniuses from a sbara that brings about the approximation of the K.V. from other things that bring about the approximation that are prohibited , and so on in such a way that is not a form of approximation of opinion as long as it is not known that there is a reason for approximation or reflection, there is no reason to prohibit 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

There is reason to say that with any object it is as usual to keep this object, and for more details and definitions see below. Sources: We find in the Law of Safeguarding Matters, in the case of the Collector of Laws of Safeguarding in Torts, and perhaps 11 of each thing will be the property according to the safeguard raised in it, and in the Law of Defense...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is reason to say that with any object it is as usual to keep this object, and for more details and definitions see below.

Sources: We find in the 20th century matters of preservation, in the Rabbinical Law of the Compiler of preservation laws in torts, and perhaps 11 Dahl Dever will be the property according to the preservation raised in it, and in the BBM concerning the laws of preservation in the keepers, and I also saw that the Rambam's words [ P.D. Meshala and Pedakdon] and Shu'a [see CG] that the guard fence is the same as the way of the guards for every kind of object in its own right, and therefore it is possible that in our case a definition of the preserved yard will be in every kind of object in its own right.

And it was said in the Matani' of tithes and it was brought up in the Gm' Nada from the EB Daikha to the Mad that a yard in which the dishes are not kept is not a yard for the purpose of tithing and i.e. to the Madd a dachal who enters and they say to him what do you want is not a yard for the purpose of tithe, and there were other opinions said in the definition of the matter, And they ruled in the Gm that according to all of them it was stricter, and so was the Rambam's ruling [from 10 FD 88] and Zal, this is the court that states, all utensils are kept in it, or there is no person ashamed of eating in it, or a court that if a person enters she is told What are you asking for, as well as a yard that has a second apartment or is shared by two that one opens and enters and one comes and enters or exits and locks, since they both open and lock, this is determined by the Supreme Court, and the way a person enters and they don't ask him what you want really seems to be a model for our matter. Preserved, because if anyone can enter the yard without the owner's permission without fearing anything, then this is surely a place that is not preserved.

But for all the opinions and definitions mentioned there in the Mishnah and in the Rambam there is a meaning that what is being discussed in this is the definition of the preserved court, and as for the language of the Gemm in BM Pah AA regarding the matter of Masher Debai' the preserved court, which the Rambam ruled as the simplicity of the language of the Gemm there, [and not as the ' in the BM there], and it also means in the Yerushalmi Mas'ash PG 13 that the matter is preserved, and in any case we must discuss all the definitions that were said there, that same is doubtful for the material and here that it is discussed sometimes to spend money and to keep money In all definitions there is legitimately a doubt, and that's it.

And M.M. also what was mentioned in the G.M. in the M.D.'s opinion that the definition is that the vessels are kept inside it, that is, that a guard is placed, etc. There is a place to say, that is, when a guard is needed, and if one is guarded without a guard, AHN, the keeper is preserved.

And regarding a courtyard surrounded by partitions by A. Natham C. R. S. K. G. and B. No. K. there they shared it.
And it seems that there is a difficulty with the Natha'am of the types of Deirovin 11 A. For this matter, there is no Burganin either abroad or in Babylon, and this is how the RIF and the Rashba resorted to the PM that is explained in the Chazu'a Erivin 3. Ki 22 A. That.
And for the PZ, what the NTHAM evidence from Gitin brought, maybe the partitions are only to consider the get that is in the yard, but the guarding is apart from the partitions, and that's it.

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

Although in the beginning it should be after the hot hawk, but in retrospect if it was after the dawn that would be enough. Sources: according to Megillah 21a, and I. Thos. Neda set 11a 4h Sheva.

Although in the beginning it should be after the hot hawk, but in retrospect if it was after the dawn that would be enough.

Sources: according to Megillah 21a, and I. Thos. Neda set 11a 4h Sheva.

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