It is appropriate to inform him to turn around. Sources: There was a place to say that there is no need to warn him because rapes are generally a blessing even when they are behind priests, and a minor rape should be discussed, not in the case of complete rape in this case, according to the end of the rabbis and the OT takkh 24, (and with a different opinion misleads him...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is appropriate to inform him to turn around.

Sources: There was a place to say that there is no need to warn him because rapes are generally a blessing even when they are behind priests, and there is a small discussion as rape, not in the case of complete rape, according to the end of RA and Okh Tachah 24 Degbi Ketan was condemned as rape, but here even without it there is room to say that it is not in their eyes complete rape), but it seems that the Ketan should be warned about this, one reason since he would come to do the same even in his greatness, as brought by the Ritba 217 in Rish Sukkah, and in particular according to the Haredim who brought The Bahl Rish C. denied that there is a mitzvah in hearing the blessing, and yet there is also an unethical way of educating the miserach when he is great, and even if there is a blessing in it without a mitzvah, it is appropriate to educate him so that he does not get used to losing the blessing in his greatness.

And I will just point out a clear source for the fact that a small is a blessing at all, even when it is behind the priests, even though it is remembered that they are the subject of amen in the Bahchan that is all priests [takh kaha], and it is explained there in the NKJV that they are a קקק in the general blessing, but it is not mentioned there that they are a blessing at all when they are Behind the priests, and rather, it means that from the language of the present they are against the priests, from what they had difficulty with, why should I say that they bless their brothers in the fields and not say that they bless the women and children, meaning that women and children are there in the place of prayer and are not at all behind the priests like their brothers in the fields, so it was made difficult for them that the blessing should be preferred Be unique to those who are there.

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

Here is surely the neighborhood of the questioner who will not be disqualified from the sukkah mitzvah if he buys an apartment without a sukkah balcony, but he will be less able to flaunt a permanent apartment in the sukkah and a continuous sitting in the sukkah, if he buys an apartment with a sukkah balcony. And it seems that an apartment with a balcony should be preferred for two reasons...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here is certainly the neighborhood of the questioner who will not be disqualified from the sukkah mitzvot if he buys an apartment without a sukkah balcony, but he will be less able to boast of a permanent apartment in the sukkah and a continuous sitting in the sukkah if he buys an apartment with a sukkah balcony.
And it seems that an apartment with a sukkah balcony should be preferred for two reasons, the first being that here it is an addition to Hidador in Dauriata and here it is an addition to Hidador in Darbanan, and that one should make an effort if in doubt Daurita is more certain than Darbanan (in Gm. Shalhi RA and Shu'a HL. RA) , and despite the fact that Meiri's name in the charges MM is also seen in these mitzvahs, and sitting excessively in the sukkah is certainly another observance of the Sukkah and investing in the Sukkah mitzvah to have a large, spacious and comfortable sukkah is in general a compilation of a mitzvah and making the sukkah every 7 regular days, and an additional point seems to be In the sukkah we note that they warned in the Mishnah to make the sukkah permanent and in the rulings it was brought up that every moment is a mitzvah and is at the foundation and root of the work, and of course it is something that a person deserves to be proud of, in regard to Hanukkah, to shine on the leaves what is lit in the window is a complete permit regarding it, even though it is a mitzvah within ten for those who can and also A mitzvah to light in a place where there is a rabbi is specified, but it is a transmitter of the owner if he lights it in the window and in its doors to let out the opinions of the scribes of our time, then it is out of the mitzvah in the first place, and we did not find that they warned the generation in Hanukkah in a place that could by this have more Nisa publications, it was found that the compilation regarding the Sukkah is the thing that is more incumbent on him.
And in any case, he should check all the other data when buying the apartment, since there are usually dozens of data when comparing apartments, and examples, such as Torah environment, synagogue environment and Torah lessons, and much more.

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

  When I recently spoke with Abrach Bnei Torah about my conclusions on the matter of Sugi' Datchalat, in my request to bring up the matter in writing, and the matter is divided into two parts, first of all the clarification of the opinion of the arbitrators if there is an obligation to impose Techalat at all, and related to that and the ramifications of the issue of Techalat in our time, and also.. .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen


When I recently spoke with Abrach Bnei Torah about my conclusions on the matter of Sugi' Datchalat, in my request to bring up the matter in writing, and the matter is divided into two parts, first of all the clarification of the opinion of the arbitrators if there is an obligation to impose Techalat at all, and related to that and branching out to the matter of Techalat in our time, and likewise to the matter of where The strings of the tzisit for the one who casts azure on his blanket [not yet brought here], and this began with the help of Zuri.

Here, first of all, regarding the mitzvot of light blue with a tzitzit, it was decided according to the opinion of the Tani'im and as it seems to me that the light blue and the white do not hinder each other, even though it is forbidden to wear a tzitzit without a tzitzit in any place, the Idna permitted to wear a tzitzit without a light blue, and simplicity is because it is not If there was a blue sky, then something was allowed that would have been forbidden if there was a blue sky, and as will be explained more below in the words of Mordechai.

And indeed, it is explained by some of the great jurists that it is forbidden to wear a tassel without a blue dress while there was a common blue dress, and it was not allowed except in rape.

Although it should be noted that, on the other hand, some of the great judges believe that even while it was worn, it was not an obligation to wear it, but only a compilation and commandment of the elite only.
And if a garment that requires a tzitzit without any tzitzit threads at all [in a place where it is possible to cast them] there is a prohibition against canceling the mitzvah of ``Asa, and it is forbidden to wear this garment, in any case if there are already white threads in this garment, it is not forbidden for him to wear this garment without light blue, but only a mitzvah from the elite .

Attributed to the Israel Defense Forces

First of all, we must bring the language attributed to the Rashba in the rabbinate of the sky [Menachot Lech 11 45 May] that Wzal wrote, I Nami I did not write from my hand and he is silent in his prayer, he is a believer, he hinders me from the mitzvah and without tarivahi, he does not There is a mitzvah from the chosen one and that is why he wrote it.

And here is a book attributed to the Hashva as it is known that Hafetz Chaim and the Gra Vaserman trusted it even though they knew it was not from the Hashva.
And there are many books whose authors are not known to us. We know from the book that the author was greater than Kamai, like everything in it and additions to many tractates.
And it is well known that the HH took the trouble to print the aforementioned essay.

Joshua's face

And also the writer Hafni Yehoshua [bm sa ev 4h betos] who brought the words of the tos about hanging a tree in his garment that passes over him from the time of hanging, and then he wrote VZL, who is the late Rabbi Dhai Shtola Klaa Ilan in his clothes were those who are sold to others in possession of azure.
And the meaning seems to me to be necessary that he is aliba dahlakta daha ki'l kelet does not hinder the white and later comes out in white separately and the teket is written in Orita we were a mitzvah from the chosen one and if so according to the 17th it is difficult why did he call the exodus from Egypt in tzitzit daha kala Ilan did not detract from the white one The blue is not because of a decree, and if so, it is permissible for Shiri to do kala Ilan unless it is a mitzvah from the chosen one like blue, and if so, there is no cheating involved in this, except that it is necessary for those who are sold to others.

And we find in his words that Tela interpreted the words of the Toss as he defined them as dela as the lekta, and it seems that his intention is that the words of the Toss are according to the system of conditions that state that he does not have a white collar, he does not cast white, and as he wrote about them and Zal, A tassel is the main thing, and on this Deitztrich wrote to pass over it from the time of hanging, so it seems clear to me in the intention of the Tos Akal, which is not the case, the Rash, who interpreted that it is known to others and is for the sake of theft and dishonesty, interpreted it as a permanent sentence because the light blue does not hinder the white, and there is nothing in this matter Total prohibition.

Edit the table

And it is necessary to add the words of the Aruch HaShulchan [OTH 39 C9] which discusses the matter of a bed sheet with a tzisit which is linen, according to those who believe that a tzisit is not put on it at all from the words of the scribes, a ruling that he should not put a blue cloth on it which is wool, and wrote Vazal, and it is not a question of the method This is the most important rabbinate of the mitzvah, and he made a dauriita for wearing a garment of God's wings with no tassels at all, but really they asked this in the Gemara [Yavmoth Tzab] and you want to desheb and do not do if they are able to dislodge and even in the case of Dain it is to return and don't do daha that does something to the wearer you want to be in toss There is a hump, a real wrapping is not binding until another is wrapped, and after it is wrapped, let him return and do not do so.
On the contrary, the first method is difficult for me, why did the Gemara think that a sheet with a tuft, in the removal of a word from the Torah, that a linen tuft fulfills the mitzvah? Akal [the Rambam], and since one casts a white piece of linen there is a mitzvah of doing, and there is no displacement of anything from the Torah at all and Tzag Akal.

And here, from his very words, why didn't he excuse the first of these people to be of the opinion that this is a prohibition from the Torah, since even though he brought the Rambam's language that the simplicity of his intention that he fulfilled a mitzvah he did and did not transgress the prohibition , MM After all, there is no difficulty with Rambam's language regarding the first-timers who disagree with 17, but rather it seems that the Hoh Pashita Lia in the simplicity of the issue that it is not possible for there to be a prohibition at all in wearing white without light blue, and therefore Hoh Adifa Lia to stand by the Tsa than to settle yes.

It is true that if Baal al-Aruch HaShalchan had seen the words of the first ones who forbade this thing completely lawfully nullifying the mitzvot of 'Asa [which are the previous stipulation and more] it is possible that he would have made an excuse that the first ones who believed that cutting a sheet with a tzizit is to cast a white person without a light blue thought that there is a prohibition in this, and as indeed the Baal of the PMG went on to explain Yes [in Shoshant Haemakim 32].
However, the opinion of the Arusha Gopi, who believed that there is no prohibition in this, was disputed.


It is true that the PMG Gofia [in his book Rosh Yosef Shabbat Kaha A.D. Sedin] again wrote Vazal, here is what Rashi wrote [D.H. They obliged and dismissed box vessels as the Toss [Da Sedin] and he is not his disciples as the 25th and Petri and imprisoned in the prisons because of nightcaps. In Tos' Tzizit, stand up and do what you want to do (in the MA we extended my disagreement with this like Mordechai and it was brought up in the 28th chapter of the 13th chapter) and Rashi of the A.S. thought they would only do a mitzvah from the chosen ones that they did not do Tkalat Kahag Shoa "Mkrei Dodai, the Torah did not forbid a daughter of God to wear veils without the blue of all who have God, a white thong (even if it is not according to Mordechai's opinion) and what would I do if Rashi God of Habin means that they were not circumcised at all, contradicting here and perhaps not according to your law, but God is for them of their kind As the mash of the Tos' to the Rashi and the mash of the Tos' D.H. Sedin to Rabbi Amram, refer to the Mor'am of Lublin, the late Dain NM, Kabbash Dainhu AKP of Darbanan Asri, and the late Rsha, La nicha li' In this, Danm regarding Dempsal's testimony, the Shabash MH, did not deny it to the LT and Luka, MH and his students, only from Darbanan, from a statue, and MASHA, Pi. The addition DKA Darshi Samokhin in wars there is an excuse for this and I understood from his words as the Tossh Rish Yavemat Nima Ifka instead of tassels you shall not wear and you shall leave Dammila the sabra yes and in the B.S Saberi Demzi to Milf from his head Dasha Dechi LT and wrote in Tzizit Dela Dehi and Amash in Sefer Purat Yosef of this Ya'ash Akal of the PMG.

And what is the meaning of his words here, who believes that there is no prohibition from the OT, apparently contradicting his words in Shoshant Ha'amkim, which he wrote to clarify the opinion of those who believe that the prohibition of a sheet in tzitzit is only in light blue, as we wrote to explain the words of the Arosh, and it is also not clear if he believes that it is permitted from Daoriyata, so what Ral Shab And don't do that I am, and it means that he is, and so what was the opinion of the makhshan in Gm' Dibmoth that he made a sheet with a tzisit because it was not reasonable for him to forbid it.

The holiness of Yot

Refer to the sanctity of the Yot Rabbi Hatchelet [C. 35] which the GCC took from the words of Rashi Datchelet is nothing but a commandment from the chosen one and later it also came out in white.
And extended there at that.

The lands of life

In the lands of life for the Malbim, the Gach is proven by his words, which he considers to be the opinion of the Holiness Yot in this matter, as was proved by the teacher of the Gara Garboz Shalita in his words, Handafsin in S. Shalmi Yosef, Menachot, Ch. And according to what he explained and forced there already in the TotoD, we saw no need to duplicate the things here.
And there this necessity also came from the words of the PMG, although we saw above a contradiction in the words of the PMG in this.

More recent ones

Refer to S. Ishr and Tov (Pietarkov 1556, also printed in the new Asifat Zakanim) Minacht Leh AA who extended that the blue is nothing but a commandment from the chosen one, and stated according to himself there Gach in S.P. Hacometz, but that he took the language there to begin with, etc. "Q, it is possible that he believed that there is a Durbanan ban or that the permit is only retrospective and I did not look at all of his words.
And see there also what he discusses about this method in the Issues section [page 27b of the book].

And in the Hoshat Hari Pemisim [HA of the Dok 37] Wzal wrote, however, for the LB Darshii, it is not kai diuka dahshas, only a mattalit in the eighth part of it is a lieshna in a tablit in the fourth part, even in retrospect It is invalid because they were marked in the mirror [and according to Rabbi DSL the white hinders the light blue] and a matlit bat 8 will not be brought because of the above concern and the language is therefore accurate a matlit bat 8 and difficult as above but 11 Dershii In my opinion, it is permissible that the Tos' brought by Rabbi Hatchelet and Rabbi Sanhedrin above named Dayin Bat in the number of the Hutin and it is allowed to add as much as one wants and also to the above Rabbi Drashi that the proof is a cloth of Bat 4 Gach apparently difficult isn't it? Afi' according to PM DKIL, it is permissible from one garment to another, even if it is not placed in the other garment, it is forbidden, as explained in the Tos' Shabbat that I brought above and in AH C. 15.
And if anyone who wants to make a more beautiful tassel is allowed to fulfill a mitzvah of the chosen one, this is to me and we will do it as explained in the 16th chapter of the same book. The dilemma is the fear that the priest will leave, according to his opinion that they are all blue in order to put white threads under them to fulfill a mitzvah of the chosen one. "M ZAZ But for the beginning of a mitzvah with a light blue and a white one, in order to fulfill a mitzva from the chosen one, one is permitted from garment to garment. And Tsa in this Akal.

And in the Shashat Hitcherot Tshuva [HA C. 19] wrote and Zal, the question of whether a deusk is exempt from the mitzvah if he also deals with the matter of a mitzvah which is only like a mitzvah and does not delay the mitzvah in retrospect if in this too he is exempted from a complete mitzvah.
It seems to me to bring evidence that deals only with the compilation of a mitzva in Alma Deftor even from a finished mitzva from a sukkah page 26 AA Datanya said Rabbi Ben Akavi wrote Tom books they and their challenges and their challenges and all those who are engaged in the work of heaven for those who sell Techelet Petorin from Kash, etc. And of all the mitzvahs mentioned in the Torah, here is a light blue for a tzitzit, and not specifically for priestly garments, and a light blue does not hinder the white and it is issued by a mitzva without a light blue. If so, a model is proven. Since it is a finished mitzvah to delay it, why did he resort to the signs of the sellers of azure, link to the signs of the sellers of a tzisit, but surely to hear the Dafi' of sellers of azure, which does not delay the white, Nemi is exempted, and this is explained, since Deushin in the work of the Creator is exempted from the work of a different mitzva, because Dakbar found out that he read Deusk A minor mitzvah is exempt even from a severe mitzvah as explained in Sogi' Shem and the entire answer must be extended in this Shem Akal.

And as 33 he discusses in the book Emek Sukkot about Sukkah 21a, [further printed in the collection of interpretations and essays "Old wine in a new jug" about Sukkah p. Taranch] and in his main words he pointed out to the Jewish Rabbinate that the entire tuft is called blue, and from M. Barash "Y doesn't mean yes.
And yet, between the deserters of the Awakening Tshuva and the deserters of the Sukkot Valley, they discussed what they thought about the fence of the charge in the blue in Tzitzit.

And it seems that if he thought that it was a complete obligation on the part of the law, he would have divided and emphasized the matter and not closed Delfinan from here to the compilation of a mitzvah.

A.A. in Sefer Shalmi Yosef [Manchut HCV 3. RICH] Deuteronomy from the author of the Garba Garboz Shalita, and in B. Habetzlet Hasharon [S. Deuteronomy HCV p.
And in Eilat at dawn that we will read below.


And the Habarbanel wrote [in Madbar 15:60] and Zal, and said, "And make them a tassel on the wings of their clothes for their generations, to say that even in the following generations, if the Israelites do not wear coats, they will make a garment with wings and make them a tassel [A. In the OT, as well as in the Ari and is attributed to the Hagra and more].
And this explains the error of those who say that if he wishes not to wear a tallit with four wings, he is not required to wear tzitzit matzot [that is, the opinion that blue hinders white and a butterfly for wisdom is a justification for calling Aliba dahlakta, so he does not come to reject conditions].
And he said and we put a light blue thread on the tuft of the wing to say that that mitzvah will shine in their silence.
But if he doesn't have azure blue, he will get out of his duty with white threads, all akal.

And it is possible to prove from any place mentioned by the rabbis that the word mitzvah is from the chosen one regarding a light blue which is not obligatory, and the dress code [Okh C. H.] and Zal, and if so when they bless with a tzitzit in Fatah, by necessity it also means with a special tzitzit And the clarifications, and we would be blue which is the main mitzvah of the tzitzit if it is found, and if so at this time when there is no blue tzitzit, the blessing with a tzitzit in Fatah is a vain and false blessing, which is as if he is saying to wrap himself in a blue tzitzit and that he fulfills the mitzva now and wraps himself in a blue tzitzit which is a commandment of the chosen one. And that's a lie.
Therefore, it is better to say in the Shoa, which means in a tzitzit, that is, even if I am unable to keep the mitzvot of the chosen ones, MM mtzot tzitzit I fulfill.
That's why I say the blessing in tzitzit in Fatah, it's a complete mistake.

And since he mentioned in his words a mitzvah from the chosen one about blue sky, I don't know if there is a necessity in his words that it is not an obligation.
And the words of clothing are known in his introduction to wearing the light blue, which he wrote, I called it the light blue dress because just as a person is obligated to wear light blue with a tzisitz every day if he can find it, he must dress himself according to these rules every day if he has the opportunity to do so, and it means that he believed that it was an obligation, and therefore also a commandment From the selection that he wrote above, it is possible to interpret it as an obligation, although there is no clear necessity here in his words to the other side, since in many places we find that they interpreted a light blue on a purely white tassel, even for a white one, and according to Rashi's Kms. To wear a tassel and not to shirk a mitzvah, and as Rabbi Katina said, Lia Malacha, and it is also possible that an obligation is a mitzvah from the chosen one, as we mentioned in the language of an obligation for the obligation to intercede even in things that are not an obligation, and as will be proven below [and with this it is already possible to justify that the person is obligated on a real blue sky].

If he has such a garment, the caller is not liable.
And if he finds it, he can include in his words, according to Mordechai, that if he does not find blue, he is allowed to wear the garment and is not obligated to exempt himself from any obligation.

And also in the Shtmaq [Minachot MA] in the name of the Tos' externalities he wrote, and not as the answer of Rashi [who believes that on a white sheet without a light blue] Amai Kamer a tzisit, whatever it may be on it, can we keep it in kind, and it should be said that the main thing is a tzisit of a light blue is and the main mitzvah Of the chosen ones, he is careful, and so is the one who dismembered what he was lighting [Shabbat 15], etc., until they would have made the wings of a cup from it, and if they had a tassel of their own kind, why would they hide it except because they did not have a blue one, the main reason for the Mitzvah is a tassel with that.
And it seems that it is impossible to prove from his words that a mitzvah from the chosen one is simply not an obligation, although it is also impossible to prove the opposite, and what is the main law of the punishment for a blue collar, see what is written below.

Evidence from the words of the

And in all that is being discussed here, we must not forget the simplicity of the words of the Toss [Manchut MA 1A] written by and Zal, and it is necessary to push Ha Dashra Rabbi Zira to its sheets, we were a blue tassel and Malacha Nami (Lakman page Ma.
) Damer to Rabbi Katina Sedina in Keita Tzitsit, what will happen to Alyah Tsittsit from the chosen one, ka Makfid, etc. Akal.
And it happened to be a tassel from the elite.

And I saw in Eilat HaShahar where he wrote, explained in the Toss of Menachot page 11 A.A. a model who does not do a mitzvah of the chosen one will be punished in the era of Ritha and Dato's shout, whoever buys a less fancy etrog will be punished and it is possible for me that it is a compilation written in the Torah to impose a tkalat akal.
And M.M. treated it as a compilation of the written Torah and not as an obligation.

Evidence from the words of Mordechai

And it should be noted that according to the words of Mordechai [Hel. Tzisit of the LKT 3. Titkmad] which was written by the late Rabbi Shlomo, says Rabbi Shlomo requires that if a person is deprived of a thread of a tallit on Shabbat that he is not allowed to wear it until he repairs it. Wings, and Rabbi Dalithia replied as Damokh in Shematin DA'G Daipsik in Carmelit Darbanan No Hoi Shiri [NA and Hoi Shiri] for the sake of the respect of the human beings do not dahinan but not do not pass, therefore it seems to Rabbi Dma Dzitzit nothing but to cast a tassel on him When we got dressed and the scripture did not say in the language you shall not wear a garment that has four wings without a tassel, then surely the law was with him, but only to put a tassel on it, and in any place there is no tallit, it is forbidden to wear it, and it is not permissible to wear it, nor does it pass because it is not now possible to put it on, since it is Shabbat and on the sand, it must pass every hour which were worn with a tassel in it, etc.

And here is what came out according to the words of the Rabbi from the requirement stated in Mordechai that if white and light blue were equal to each other, it was forbidden to wear a tassel without a light blue even when it is not present, since it is forbidden to wear a garment with wings without a tassel even when there are no tassel threads at all, and May He hates a light blue that is permitted, as they said [Minachot Lech 12] He does not have a light blue cast for a white person, and because they say to a person a sin in order for you to gain, that is, he sinned in the mitzvah of light blue in order for you to gain the mitzvot, for a white man, and we do not find a sermon to permit the prohibition of light blue that one cannot rebuke a mitzvah for a white man without It.

It is true that according to the Rabbi quoted in Mordechai there is no necessity for one of the parties here, since the Rabbi personally believes that if there is no white tassel, it is permissible to wear the garment without a tassel, and even more so if there is no light blue, one is permitted to wear a tassel with only a white one, which fulfills the mitzvot of a tassel in retrospect. "P.

And there is a reason to say that the opinion of the Rashid is required. It is heard in the opinion of R. Deed here that it is not peligi, but whether it is permissible to wear a garment without a white tassel when there is no light blue, but not peligi on the basis of what is the desiring of the Idna to wear a tassel without a light blue if it is on behalf of the above of R. Or which is on the grounds that teklat is not an obligation of mana, and Mordechai himself who brought the opinion of the Rash Medrosh Gach does not mainly disagree with the above account, but it is possible that it is not obligatory except in the opinion of the Rash Medrosh but not in the opinion of Rabbi.

In the opinion of Shuat Binyamin Ze'ev

I also saw that Rabbi Ariel pointed out to the Mash in Shu'at Binyamin Ze'ev [endnote] wrote and Zal, and let him not be likened to you who makes Tzitzat Laban Dadin remains from the mitzvah and it is not a complete mitzvah for he who does not do it is blue and his likeness is like one who puts on a tefillin of a single hand or The prayer of the head alone is death in tefillin when he puts on one of the mitzvahs of the first mitzvah and leaves another mitzvah, that is, the second prayer, but with the tzitzit, even if he does not put on blue, he makes the mitzva complete in its essence except that it is not dyed and perishable, and this does not hinder it. It hinders the white and the white does not hinder the light blue duff on the back of a damzu to give the light blue of B. a thong in the tzisit of the APA it does not hinder it and I did not work the four light blue or white came out as defirshi etc. Akal.

MM it seems that there is no evidence for our case, his opinion is that there is a complete mitzvah in this and MM there is still a discussion about the detail of Techelet whether it is a detail that is obligated in it or not.

In the opinion of the TPAI

I also saw that he pointed out to the Mash Hatfa'i (in his preface to Seder Moed, "Rules for the Holy Clothing of the Priesthood") and the late, therefore, from a light blue color inhibits whiteness, and Ika feared that Atanz, for the most invalidated in the days of the Geniuses to be completely light blue.
Even in this there seems to be no clear evidence, it is possible that his intention was that it was the agreement of all the Geniuses to amend this regulation (and this is the opinion of the Chav on his part), or it is possible that there were other additions of the decree of the king or that they should have brought the MAI in such a way that they were not obliged by the principle of the law to bother In this, but surely it is an answer to the above opinion.

The opinion of the great teachers of our time

And it seems simple that we found in the majority of the great teachers that they did not refer so much to the obligation of wearing light blue on the part of Halacha, it is founded on the basis of this opinion that light blue is not an obligation from the law, and in any case any reference to it accordingly.
And I heard about one of the great Rabbis who said in Sinai to one of his young students that it was a simple and agreed upon thing in his opinion that it was the light blue that was customary at that time, but that the harm in it for his students to wear is more than the benefit (from the owner of the rumor), and of course this is about yeshiva boys who are subject to their rabbis, and a guy who is not subject to his rabbis and even Not to the Sages of Israel, and doing what one's heart desires can result in harm, but everything depends on the matter, because everywhere this is considered disobedience to the Sages of Israel.

And here is a rule that is found in the judges that hindsight is like the time of blood pressure, and every time of pressure is like blood pressure, and in any case for our purposes, regardless of the fact that there is a matter of punishment even in a mitzvah of the chosen one, and as they said the punishment of a white person is greater than the punishment of a blue one, and some of the first learned that this was also the case with the punishment of Idan Ritcha , it was intended for a tzitzit without a light blue, and as stated above, and in truth also according to the rulings that Rabbi Katina did not cast a tzitzit at all in his talisman, then he was exempt from the law, he was empowered by the sages to disobey a mitzvah in Shev and do not, but he was punished for what he did not oblige himself to the mitzvah according to the words of Rabbi Yona, known in the Shaari Teshuvah Gate C.
And in any case, it does not appear that all of your rabbis were wrong about the sub-item that there is a punishment for those who do not put on the blue of their veil, since the punishment also belongs to the mitzvah of the chosen one.

And it should be noted that in the Zohar we also mention in several places that it speaks of punishment for things that are not lawful at all, and refer to Beit Yosef [Och C. 3] in the name of Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of touching a married person, [Vazal there, and after I wrote all this I found Rabbi Yona who wrote in the Book of Awe (Dah, these are the words) and this is his language, and if he urinates while standing, he must be careful not to touch her forehead unless she is wearing a crown and down to the side of the earth, even if he is married, because after that the punishment is so great that it is like bringing a flood to the world, so a person has to stay away and sanctify himself, even in what is permitted And so our holy Rabbi from his days did not put his hands below the Avanto (Shabbat Kih:) Akal and it seems that our Lord continued after him and wrote if it is not decorated and down to the side of the earth and even if he is married but he shortened it in the place he had to extend and interpret the Hassidic law of a year here and not from the Akal law B. B.].
Furthermore, it should be noted the words of our Rabbi Jonah in the Book of Awe regarding the matter of being united with his daughter.

But in fact the law is as above, that in anything that is not an obligation from the law, even if in a normal case there is a legal punishment for it, a punishment for a mitzva from the chosen one, in any case, the reward of a mitzva is calculated against the loss, and included in this is the rule that the reward of one mitzva should be calculated against what can To lose a ziz from other mitzvot by grama or by hand, and of course everything depends on the matter, broadcasting fees in the place that goes with it or in any way that does not cause any harm, the question is already different, and it still has to be discussed with other matters such as changes in mitzvot in our time which are dangerous, as well as a teaching against the great teaching In Sana'a and Parhasiya and in fact he will make a wise question.

The detection probability of the morax snail

And here I saw to Tomi in several places that the general reference by those who sat on the studies belonging to the identification of the blue snail, that from a scientific and research point of view it seems that this was the snail that existed at the time of the Sages, since there is clear evidence that this snail was used a lot in their time for dyeing, and also for blue dyeing.
And in any case, it would be remiss to say that their snail was a different snail, since we did not find that they warned sages against the prohibition of dyeing the tassel from the same snail that the whole world uses except them.

The level of the obligation to cast this azure is from the Halacha

But when we come to discuss this from the point of view of Gadari Halacha, if there is an obligation today to wear a light blue, we will not find clear reasons to oblige at all, first of all because there are some judges that we follow who wrote that wearing the light blue with a tzizit is not an obligation, and there are already some of the latter who have adopted that as long as it is not clear that the halkha is a man in number The threads, anyone who casts blue on his talisman loses all of the mitzvah of the tassel completely according to the opinions that he cast an incorrect number, and see what Rabbi Daniel Galis elaborated on this in his article printed in Moriah.

Does it belong to conditioning?

And what we argued in the Beit Midrash is that it is appropriate to make a condition that one does not intend to use the light blue color in the threads that are not an obligation [that if the caster according to the opinion of the Rabbis or Rambam makes a condition that if the light blue color is harmful to the tzitzit acids he intends not to go out in them, or if the caster according to the opinion of the Toss makes a condition that if he is obligated to use fewer threads Alo intends to go out only in the color he is obligated to wear], it really seems that it is impossible to say that the second sex will wear it and intend to go out in it for the first sex, and it should be noted in this the language of the Chazoa [C. In B. C. 9, he brought the opinion of the rishonim who disagree about Rashi and the Rabbis, that in their opinion white is not the color of the talit at all, and that the talit is not absolved by it except for a mina chal dakl that is not a light blue color. "For the tassel of the color of the wing, it is written on a white garment and the threads of the tassel are white [but it is not a condition in the law of the mitzvah that the color be of the same color as the garment, but that it should not be light blue] and according to the reason that God said the light blue threads are obligatory, and if God made the light blue Nemi kosher, that's what he said The stipulation that this is not true but the will of the Torah is precisely in two species, and if he did all of D'Hotin's light blue, the mitzvah would not be light blue, and if the tallit is light blue, it is not possible to make the white from the type of the tallit, but rather from a different species.

And for the fear that you should not add [who raised a claim in the BHMAD that if it is not light blue, it passes without adding] It is very possible that such a condition would be useful, since really on the side where there is no light blue, it is like the rest of a painted white.
And the Ilan prison should be discussed separately whether it belongs today or not [and it is a matter of discretion].

Additional concerns

And indeed, several more claims were heard in the Beit Midrash about the possibility of resuming voting today, and even though it seemed to the Anad Dam everything was benign other than that, it would not seem to Dina to trust Kola on the above claims, each for his own reasons[1], in any case, since there are already the above reasons, we can add them and add to them, since there is still room to discuss these things, especially since they are things that belong more to discretion, and since the great teachers of our time have already written that the matter is not decided yet, we do not have the power to argue about them and decide on it.

Still in the opinion of the great sages

And here Hazinan Dakhl Rabnan Kashishai did not refer to the question of the blue sky at the level of halacha, and even the Gerhak zt'al in his answers in a biased opinion it seems that the answers are not at all from the halachic side, for example in Alma Meshak there on the words of the Maharil, and this is a simple matter that in his opinion there is no The condemned in general is something to be discussed about as clear to all the source there, and on the other hand I also heard from his student Rabbi Uriel Shlangar who discussed with him the evidence in the book Luot Techelt and the Gerach told him about the words of the Levite that this is a beautiful piece of evidence, and similarly I heard from the Gerach's grandson Tzvion that he heard from his mouth as if This is about what is translated in the past as Teich Porfur Wahl (I don't remember the exact wording of this), [and it seems that his intention is that since we called it that way were translators abroad, so it was found that as a form of tradition it was customary for them to say that the name of the blue in the spoken language was Porfur], and with all this regarding The halachic question, his opinion is known regarding actual wearing, in fact there is no guesswork here.

And it is also known the opinion of some of the rabbis in writing and in the AP, that although in terms of probability it seems that the identification turns out, but with regard to wearing according to Halacha there is no doer, each for his own sake, such as Gersh Nadel and Germ Shafarn who wrote yes in writing, and more from the rabbis whose names we have heard rumors about such It's each one on his behalf, Garbad Klein and Garbad Diskin and more.

And it seems that there is a view here of the Torah scholars who are well versed in the mitzvahs of the Torah, which says that it is very difficult to almost impossible to reproduce such a mitzvah without a tradition, apart from all the claims made here, there is another claim that in the opinion of the Torah scholars is very weighty, not only that there are many deficiencies in the dyeing and casting of the blue , but also the problems that may arise from observing such a mitzva without a tradition, we will never know, and for example in Alma if we were to try to reconstruct the Lulav from the Gemara only without the rishonim (since even the rishonim did not have a blue sky in order to make us hear all the laws pertaining to it in the rest of the Torah, and there are not many rishonim on All the matters of the azure, as in the rest of the tzitzit laws) we will never know all the types of wrongs, such as a slik in a straight line and what is crooked before and after it, etc. And if we only had a species of mullein (something that could easily have been created over the years if there had been a legal ban on growing triangular mullein for example) that were not triangular, we would have said that the Sages did not intend for a complete trinity, and also according to the way, and this is roughly the spirit The well-known statements of the above-mentioned Garnak on the matter of azure in the second thread book, which actually changes the whole face of the issue of azure, that the discussion does not end at all when it becomes clear whether it is azure or not, and even when we accept the words of science as reliable that the type of purple was used to dye the azure, there is still no here The obligation of the Halacha to cast a veil, and all the casting of the initial doubt and the lack of need to find out the research on the subject is only as an appendix and as an ignorant addition to the main claim.

And this is why you noticed the Rash who will live their times in their hands to check the studies on the subject, God they will live, that although as is known most of the knowledgeable who were interested in the study of the azure and the snail, tended to say that the identification turns out, but the issue does not begin and end with the question of identification and as a SNA.

Last method

To sum things up, even though the common and simple opinion among the puskims is that there is an obligation to cast the azure, and there is a scientific probability that this is the ancient azure, in any case, since the opinion of many puskams, including some of the greatest puskams that we follow, is that there is no obligation to throw azure in the tzitzit, and since there are certain concerns about this azure, and also We have seen most of the great teachers of our time withdraw their hands from the imposition of this azure, therefore there is certainly no fear from the beginning on the part of the court to prevent its imposition, and so on until this becomes more widespread throughout Israel.

Addition after time

In the matter of the article on blue is not mandatory

Yeavi' in the Shua Okh C. Sha Salah who goes out with a tallit that is not crimped according to the law is obligated because those threads are important to him and his opinion about them until he completes and makes a tassel, and if it is crimped according to the law even though it does not have blue, it is permissible to go out with it on Shabbat Akal , and he wrote there in the Bayagra Skatz and Zal, a.f. as a rabbinical name there, and even in the worst, since he does not have the mind to complete the above-mentioned Akal, and wanted to say that he is not going to fix it at all, and here in raids from Meiri while there is a blue sky and he can make a blue sky However, there is no need to come to court, the light blue does not hinder the white, and even if he has light blue, he is allowed to go out in a garment with white threads on it on Shabbat, not from the opinion presented in Mordechai that on Shabbat there is no obligation on him because even if it is not decorated according to the law, it will be It is permissible to go out on Shabbat because it cannot be repaired on Shabbat, but only because the condition is that something is needed that is not ready to be repaired at all and does not need to be repaired at all, and only after this condition is met will it be important as it is not ready to be repaired and it will be permissible to go out on it on Shabbat, and the reason for this is that a garment that has white threads in it is not a garment that does not have a tassel, such a garment of white threads is not going to be completed at all.


And Yaoi' further in Rashi Menachot Ma EB DHA except for Kela Ilan, who wrote on the grounds that it would be ruined if he took Kela Ilan instead of Teklat in Tzizit and Zal, and one of them was found to have passed away in Kela Ilan for a light blue onion and two of Kela Ilan with a white one in Tzizit and Oi Kailaim Without the mitzva of Akal, and it is clear from his words that the whole fear is in the form of a name that he will throw the prison Ilan in possession of a light blue and then violate the prohibition of kalaim, but the fact that he wears a tassel with a white man without a light blue is not a reason to make a decision because of this, and the model in Gebra Dayit Lia a light blue is what we are dealing with, However, it is not a prohibition to cut because of it, but only because of the hybrids as above.

And Yaoi' there again in Thos. 15, and if he brought what he wrote to Mai Defirsh in the counters, he decla Ilan instead of white is invalid because it is similar to light blue, and there are not two species here, it is difficult, from a crisp dilemma, Hai Baryta Karbanan, Drish Perkin Damri, there is no light blue hindering the white Akal, we were That the Toss makes it difficult, why is it not justified by the Bariyata that Ilan prison is not exempted, considering that the white man is a hindrance, and the Madan considers that if he brought kosher as a man, the white man is not hindered, according to the explanation of their words, and here is the language if he brought kosher, it is included in this for the understanding that he is not obliged to permit the tassel and redo it , and it is clear from this that there is no prohibition to wear a garment that has light blue instead of white, and on the contrary, daha baha tlia and both of them together were said in the words of Rabbi Barish Perkin.

However, it should be noted from the second commentary in Rashi that Rashi took to the main point that it really follows that a son without techalet would have to permit and do it with techelet if he has techelet, and as such, this is the reason why Rashi did not make the difficulty of the toss difficult for him because the more he means to her that he does not hinder is not the permit Finished, but according to the first interpretation in the Rashi and the PD the Tossh comes out as above that there is no prohibition to wear a garment that does not have light blue, only from the Delhatos it comes out that in the first place such a tassel of one kind is not to be made but in the Parshai in the first interpretation There is no evidence for this ruling that it would be prohibited in the first place from the Rashi, not from Meiri, except from a fear of prisons (and even the Toss is not proven that way, they agree with the conclusion that they did not say anything but a settlement proposal for the difficulty of the Hajm' to interpret yes in the words of the Berita and to settle the Hagm's difficulty according to the second interpretation of the Hajj, but no It will be explained that this is their opinion of the Halacha that it is forbidden to make such a tassel in the first place).

And although the Shtmk and the Hagma interpret 33 as in the second part of the Barshi, but it is still not proven from this interpretation that there is a prohibition against white without light blue, the Dmm has a regulation mentioned in the gm there that does not prevent one from doing as the main tikkun of the mitzvah of two species even if It does not violate a prohibition.


A general comment on the matter of light blue

The state of affairs today is that the majority of scientists have given a positive attitude to the issue of blue matter, and the majority of halachic judges did not take it seriously at all or even expressed reservations explicitly, and the question arises because these and these are acting logically and intelligently, so what did some see to strengthen the matter and others to negate the matter, and the answer to this is Everyone when he comes to discuss something discusses it in his field of occupation and expertise, therefore a scientist when he comes to investigate the matter of azure focuses mainly on the question of whether or not there is evidence that this species was used in the past for dyeing or not, and the answer is yes, because this is how science proves that in the past there was a species called porphyra, some of which exist The day that was used for dyeing clothes, however, the man of halacha who came to examine the issue of blue-blue, the focus of the investigation is not directed to this issue, but even if we accept the assumption of scientists who used this species for dyeing in the past, there is still much to examine and learn, and a mitzvah that depends on colors and shades and an ancient dyeing process and to clarify a species that has A certain animal or a certain species or certain characteristics or even a certain family, and other disputes that have not been decided in Halacha, are very difficult to reproduce in practice, and until we manage to solve and decipher one question even if we trust all our decisions there is still a lot to discuss about other things.

What comes out of this is that in addition to reason, emotion is also at work here, and we mean that after the scientist sees how solid and proven the evidence is and proves this specific point, then all the other halachic questions can be given to narrow and less precise excuses, and since in matters that concern halachic, almost any proposal can be put forward The Ramban says that there is no such wisdom as the wisdom of Tashvorat, which has one and only answer to every question, (and by the Ramban and other rishonim regarding Zakan Mamra), but in order to rule on practical halachicism, people who have learned the issues of the halachic tzitzit for practical halachic gafat and Tobiah, And they have experience in halachic rulings on many other issues.



[1] And in short, with regard to the exact shade of coloring, it is difficult to say that it is an obstacle like the impurity of the blood of the Hendah Madorita which hinders an exact shade, because for the sake of simplicity the words of the Tosefta are not strict except that it be from a snail, nor have we found in the Sages a single person who ordered a certain shade, and rather in comparisons of the shade of light blue according to What was brought forth in the Sages and various midrashims and the Zohar we found that everywhere a different tone was brought forth.

And regarding the company of the Rishonim, if the marks are inserted into the gun during the drawing, here is the Zev that the overwhelming majority of the Rishonim believed that the marks should be inserted, which includes the opinion of the Tos, the Gaonim, the Rambam, and the Radek? Ravuta, and as explained in 2 Halachot Tzizit even more than that, see there, (and apart from this here, if a khashush is in his opinion, it will only be for the koala), and also in this chalzon AA to paint without markers, and it is clear that AA that the chalazoon will correspond to all the methods of the rishonim in the places that were divided In the interpretations of the issues, they themselves did not see the snail, and Segi, which agrees with the opinion of some of the first, and moreover, Aliba Dahalkalta also believes that Rashi does not insert the markers into the shoot, mm. There was no shortcoming, and they just pressed it there according to May DSD which changes the color and together with that the color is made, so the color becomes not only a snail, and on that you can do whatever you want, but in a way that does not participate at all in the way there is no SDD that would have a defect in it .

And I've heard it said that if we use this azure, we should be concerned that in the future another azure will be found that will be more precise and there is no end to the matter, since there have already been different identifications in the past, and finally this identification has come, so we are afraid that another identification may emerge in the future. to the claim as 17, but it seems that this claim mainly belongs to those who are outside the investigation of this identification, but anyone who has already been interested and has gone into the depth of this type [even though there is no obligation to do so according to the Mishnat, mm those who have already done so], will see that A to compare one to the other, since there is a very large distance between Radzin's blue, which was not based on any findable, literary, or historical evidence, and the morax, which was certainly used for coloring and is very well-founded, and when the extracts were not many, and in contrast, there was no epithet Hacham A. of the natural sages who took seriously the identification of Rabbi Dradzin, the Morkas I know and my acquaintances who agreed to the plausibility of this identification dozens of extreme and well-known there (and they are among the greatest of Israel), and in contrast this identification is also agreed upon and accepted by the natural sages [although there is not always Halachic weight according to the wisdom of the natural sages], and to all of this it should be added that the identification of the morax far precedes the identification of radzin, both among the sages of Israel and among the natural sages in contrast, and the identification of radzin is a short affair that began between the time when the identification of the morax was already raised by various sages and its circulation and publication, until it faded away Radzin's identification and he went as he came (and today there is no one who wore it on his own opinion and based on his own understanding).
And it seems to me that those who remain in the mentioned claim are more people who have not seen this kind of thing up close.
But it will already be explained that this is not the issue to oblige the Halacha to impose a blue sky.

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

A question in the law of a house built in a building that has a KHNAS at the bottom, except that the KHNAS is not directed directly against the house, and there are several other sides and details in the NIDD as will be explained, is there a prohibition of 13 years in the KHNAS. The Shu'a wrote [ C. na] Be careful not to use the leaves that...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

A question regarding the law of a house built in a building that has a KHNAS at the bottom, except that the KHNAS is not directed directly against the house, and there are several other sides and details in the NIDD as will be explained, is there a prohibition of one year against the KHNAS.

The writing of the Shu'a [Si Na] one should be careful not to use the leaves that are on top of the B. A constant use of derogatory words such as lying there, and other uses one should be satisfied if it is permissible to use the name after the fact.

a) And for our purposes, it seems that the main reason for allowing this is from the point that the house is not directed against the Hanas, but against another apartment built on the floor of the Hanas on the side of the Hanas, and in this the Shua does not mean that it is on top of the Hanas.

And Yaoi' in Shu'at Far Hador [3. to] the Rambam's opinion that it is possible to use Efi, you shall use it indecently in the ascent as long as it is not against the temple, and I. Lahida [see in Mohabbar letter 4 and Haim Al Ha'a C. Well] it seems that he leans after his opinion [but in Barchi C. Kana they only brought it as an opinion].
And if so, all the more so, he is in this matter a friend who is not against the synagogue at all.

And it is true that in the Shoah and in the rulings cited in the Bible, it does not mean that, but rather that one must be careful about every space in the synagogue, and even in the 20th century [C. Kana Sak M] who brought the answer of the above generation, it means from his language there that they brought ACP only in the matter of a use that is not obscene, in which one should trust and ease the words of Par Hador, MM there is a place to say here not Peligi who rules on the Rambam but in a matter that is not against the temple, desbri that the strictness is against all of the synagogue as the simplicity of the language of the Rabbis In B.I. [ibid.], but for the matter that is not against Bhaknes in this he acknowledges to the Maimonides even for an obscene use it is legal in this because of sanctity at all.

The first scholars [quoted in 22 Shem] who discussed the matter of the offerings of the synagogue learned this by comparing the ordinances of the synagogue to the offerings of the Ezra and the temple, and mentioned that Daggin and the altars of Dezera were not sanctified [Pesachim p. Yach according to his likeness, and it was also brought up in the Mishnab there [sec. lat], and it is evident that the temple will not be sanctified except against the temple and not on the side of the court, and as will be explained below from the words of the mishna in the Ma'ash [Pb 37], there is no make our case worse than that.

And the Zal Mishna in the above-mentioned second tithe, the chambers are built in the holy place and open to the holy ground, etc., built in the holy place and in the holy place, and open to the holy place and the holy place, and their roofs are opposite the holy place and the holy place is opposite the holy place and the holy place is opposite the holy place.

And simply the intention of the Mishna is that the same chambers are open to both the holy and the holy in B. Petchin to one chamber, in this their law is that they throw sand and holy arrows against the holy wall, and likewise on their roofs the ruling will be that only what is against the holy wall and in front of it will be holy and what is against the holy wall And outside the sand, and this is even though there is no wall or partition below between the sanctuary and the sand, but it is clear that if the tabernacle had not been built, the partition would have been a stretch in a straight line from the place it came to where it continues there now, and it is also explained in the Yoma [as above] in a tabernacle that is open to the sides and built In sanctification and sand, he rules that half is sand and half is sanctity, and indeed refer there to old Tos.

And apparently [by Houn Rich and Hanat Eliyahu in the name of Yerushalmi] regarding the roof there is no difference between the chambers themselves being open to the holy only or to the holy only or to the holy and the holy, a model if the chambers themselves are open to only one of them, mm the roof opposite the holy is holy and the opposite to the holy is holy, (In the way that there is sanctity for the roof, such as the chambers in the temple or the chambers of the Shavin for the land of help, cf. Pesachim [Fo 1a], and cf. below).

Dahana is built with sand and is open to sanctify Damari' in the Risha Damtani', its interior is holy and its roof is sanctified and its roof is sanctified, so in this case the sanctity is only against what would have been under it if the temple had been in a straight line, but look at Gm' Pesachim there who interpreted Risha Damtani' in a different way see There, and however in the Nidd of the Bihkenas it does not belong to actually study these laws for Kola, since according to the Bihkenas any place that is holy at the bottom, such as that used for prayer, is considered holy even without this, and it follows that what is open only to sanctification is itself holy, In the Temple everything is in writing and not in usages Talia Milta, and in this sanctity did not spread to the roof, even if I interpret the 'matani' as simple, but ACP in the Nidd in the question about Bahkenas Myri in such a way that it is also not a roof to such a place open only to sanctification.

And since the aliyah is built on top of an apartment that is not open to dedication at all, and the aliyah itself is not open to dedication and not even to the area built for the dedication, therefore there is no concern about the sanctity of this elevation.

And since Dathan for this to pom orchan, perhaps there is a place to renew the law of the 10th Segi for this matter to be considered as equal to the land of help [according to the Sukkah 5 AA it never came down, etc., and Moses did not ascend, etc., as it is said that the heavens belong to God and the earth, etc.], and in this If the roof of the chamber is equal to the land of the relief found in the chamber itself, it was brought to it as a sanctuary and the chambers were not consecrated, and there in the temple you will want to sanctify in the chambers that are open so it is The law, but 1717-16, the Mishola is as if it were built with sand, the defilements will not be sanctified, but if it is open to sanctify, it is as if it is built with sand and is open to sanctify, then in Sipa Damtani', the Mishnah will settle, meaning that it is from the chamber itself that it is sanctified, and there is sand from it, as well as In the roof, dams and meiris in their roofs are equal to the relief ground and built in the hole, so it is considered as built in sand and open to sanctification and to the sand that has no sanctity in it at all, since it is not built in sanctity, and if the meiri on the floor of the chamber is equal to the relief ground, then the roof and the elevations are not sanctified The above.

And according to our words, the attic roof should be settled a little higher than the relief ground within ten, it is still found to be equal to the relief ground, as well as the loft itself, even if it is a few mm deep, is aimed at the air of the relief ground in its upper part, although apparently if this excuse is true, the HGM to settle Yes, also about difficulty, 'Drisha Damtani', and lest because he is pressing, it is better for him not to settle in this way.

But it should not be said in a different way, it is the body of the Mish that if there is any of it in the Kadesh, RL that if half of the chamber is built equal to the ground of the relief and half of the chamber is built in a legal settlement as half in the Kadesh and half in the sand, DLPZ is found a Damsh against the Kadesh is the roof that is not equal to the land The Ezra is higher than it, whereas the M.S. against the sand is the roof equal to the ground of the Ezra (that is, the roof opposite the part of the chamber that is built in depth and considered as a pit), and on the other hand, towards Lia Dema, what is built against the sanctuary is sand and what is built against the sand is the sanctuary, so we found that the roof of the pit is equal to the ground .

Admittedly, according to what is explained in the Gm, they wrote there on Risha Damtani' Damiri in the adjacent chambers of Alzara, so also Sifa Damtani' should be okami bahchi, and so we did not hear about the matter of the roofs of the temple being raised against the sacred dedication.
And M.M. Sabra is thus the second opinion in this as well.

b) And I'm in the Mahari'at [Yod 12 34] that made it difficult for the holocaust between the Bahkenas and the temple, the temple's roofs of the entire height read the same written in the name of the temple and also the elevations are all written by D'Ekkad, and also If we do not accept his difficulty with the words of the arbiters of the Halacha to be lightened, according to his explanation regarding the roof of the temple, the prohibition to use the roof of the temple is because the scripture called a temple, and the scripture certainly did not call a temple for the roof of the party, such as the cells and the hall (and p. The following [in our words about Menach Shlomo] is what we wrote in another way for the well of the sanctity of the Ascensions that is in the Temple).

c) And we will return to our subject, what we wrote to permit in such a way that the house is not built directly against the synagogue, yes, it is possible that the intention of the Mishka in Shuat Beit Halevi "L, and regarding the beginning, even though many have ruled completely as the Fahd, the radar is more simple than the Shua'a and the judges are drawn to be stricter in the entire area of the Akal, and in all the area the DRAL should be interpreted simply in the entire area of the Bihkenas, for the perspective of opinion The modern luxury is only what is directed against the temple, but if there is a ban on the use of the entire aliya, then it is for the mimer in the entire aliya, and this seems to be exactly right.

c) In the Halikoth Shlomo [Tefila Chapter 19 33] written by the Great, Hadar above the synagogue will determine the bedroom on the other side of the apartment, which is not above the synagogue at all, and in the place directed against the holy ark, etc., he will not use any utensil there at all , but we will leave it empty.
And the bedroom where a man and his wife sleep is called for this purpose an indecent use, according to Sefer Hassidim [C.

And since in this halacha it is mentioned retrospectively, and it is not written that it is allowed to pass on the floor above the synagogue if it is not opposite the synagogue, it should not be precise from the language that it is only retrospectively, it should be said that I will pass away in the way that has already been passed and not in the way that it was in the first place if it is allowed to pass there And the Book of Solomon's Acts was not composed by the late author himself), and rather in the note there 20 that it is heard from him that this instruction was more serious than the main part of the law according to what was explained there that there was a house ruling between them.

On the other hand, on the other hand, he is within the limits of the situation of Diabd, who was already there, and there was room to allow more than the main point of the law. Not against the temple, and it is as we wrote to be precise from the language of the above-mentioned Mishnab Dabeza should not be lightened as the glory of the generation, but he did not use the language retroactively so as to listen to them in the first place will not come to the generation there at all.

And in our opinion, Duff the place of the apartment itself of any use that is not obscene is already better than the case that was brought before the owner of Mench Shlomo, if his house was there, his share was on top of the synagogue, and told him that the obscene use will not be done by the synagogue, but only use that is not Also obscene is the one that is not in front of the temple [as explained there], but here it is that a use that is not obscene is not made on top of any space above the synagogue.

d) And by the way, what is left in the Shu'at Menchat Shlomo [Ha C. za] about the words of the last geniuses who wrote things about the laws of Gegin and Aliyah, and he wrote there and Zal, and the Lanad Delkaura Tsa Dema Sabra is Daggin without partitions, they were not sanctified, and if Just make partitions around them and call them by the name of Aliyat, the sanctity has already applied to them as well, and we also need an explanation because the mention of the scripture "Aliyatyo" proves that they also sanctified the Aliyats, and it is possible that they needed it for other needs, but not to be sanctified in the sanctity of the temple, and it is absolutely impossible for Aliya without a roof. And so it is simple that the roof is also the pattern of the hall in general and from 4 and Afia we say that the roof is holy, and so it is not said that the scriptures required to make elevations mm.
Look there at length and you will understand his words.

And in my humbleness I did not have the privilege of understanding these difficulties, as Meiri wrote everything in writing from the hand of God on me the wise, and this is written and his ascents, that the ascents were also in writing, so it does not hang at all in the partitions but in what was commanded in the Rohak to be done on it because the temple will be sanctified only.
It is found that everything that is in general the commandment and its elevations according to the form commanded by a higher mouth is in general holiness and its elevations while not commanded is nothing but a mere roof.

Although I do not intend to reject a simple fact in his explanation of the sanctity of the Ascensions which is like the Mahari'at.

And while it is true that according to our opinion that it is a law "everything in writing" it should still be made more difficult based on what should be made stricter in our churches because in them everything is not stated in law in writing, and in a hurry it must be said that the first arbitrators explained that it is a dishonor that we have to liken the form of the synagogue to the form of a hall For the matter that his ascensions also have sanctity in them, since it is called in the Bible a little sanctified, and i.e. in what is the words of the scribes regarding the second Passovers [].

e) Another addition must be added to this is the ruling of two floors between the floor of the synagogue and the floor of the apartment in question. There are some of the judges who wrote that there is room to ease this, and there is also the ruling of one floor. plunder.

f) We should also add here what he wrote in the ways of Moshe [C. Kana s.k. 2] and Zal, and what Maharishi Weil wrote in his passages [at the end of his answers C. Nev], whoever enters the synagogue together if it is permissible to sleep and lie on it, and I answered the desri dafilo Laman Dasser does not forbid, but rather the built synagogue begins to do so Dumya Dihichl Damiiti Minya Raya in Mordechai Chapter Kama Dashab [3. Rakah] Akal, and so on Rama [Baha Haga on Shu'a ibid] and Zal, and all It is precisely in a permanent synagogue that was built prior to this, but a bribed house after it was built for the Synagogue is allowed to lie on it.
And according to what the Mishnav wrote Damm Shumer Nefso will stay away from it, etc.
However, regarding the matter of annexation, there is certainly room for this annexation, given that in Nidd it is an old building, it is obvious that the apartment below was designated only after it was built for the synagogue.

And it should be brought to this in the Shu'at Avni Nizar [Och Si Lev Skav] who heard that there are no practices according to the 16th century (the stricter in the use of derogatory adversaries in the Church in this manner of the Rama'a) in the great places Sha'a Get a place to pray there if they have to make sure that there is no apartment building above.

And it is necessary to add to this MS Ba'al HaKhi in the letter [printed in Kareena Dagarta 18th C. Po] that in large towns that used to make it easier in general is what the deceased said in KHM [Shabbat Kecht AA; Yabmot Ab 1a] Dahaidna was discussed by many Shumer Pethaiyim 5 (Psalms 16:6), and the name is not for everything that is forbidden by the law, but for this matter Dharma that the latter warned that there is a danger in it [cit. "S Kana], p. 17, HaKhi Dakhion wrote that from the point of view of the law, this should be eased with regard to the danger, says Shumer Pethaiyim 5.

And I. in the response of the tribe of Levi [Ha C. 27 and Ha. C. La] what discussed the matter of the synagogue that is located inside a building in our time and the reference to it, there is room to say that it is easier see there.

g) It should also be added that a person forbids something that is not his own [Pesachim TSA], and since this is joint property, then it is similar to partners who have a house and one of them sets aside the house for the Knesset. The partner in this house, and it should be reviewed?.

Moreover, on the part of many who inquired about a way for themselves what they inquired about [Iroubin Tsad], is it also useful to prohibit a court in the Khenas when they sought out a place for themselves in the Khenas without the knowledge of one of the owners, and this is the law of many who inquired personally about Meiri only in such a way that they lost a way there [BBK 1], and here is that they have a different law in the Bible, and from the Bible it seems like Titi Ha, and that many people were robbed like you are in the BB there, and what is the dish for many people to sanctify the street? , and the NPC that if the street is sold, it will be forbidden to buy a minor thing in it, that is, on a street that is in the public domain, and no one has more ownership of it than another, as a harmer by distinguishing the house to another house, so that no one forbids something that is not His, and 27th century?.

And it is true that the judges abroad who discussed in their time about the increases of the HaKhanas did not mention so much a law that is similar to our case, since the form of construction as it is today, where there is a multi-storey condominium, did not exist much in their time and in particular a building in the HaKhanas, which when it was built entirely there (and p. above), and in many of the cases his aliya was built from the collection fees of the Hanas and from the property of the Hanas and for the uses of the Hanas, and there were not as many churches in their towns as in our places here, and therefore the main thing that we discussed about it is really in the way that the aliya It is owned by the endowment of the Bahkenas, and therefore it is possible that their words are necessary for our case.

However, for our purposes there is reason to say that Dachion, who did not ask for it, agreed to it and as a Demitzer that was held by many [cf. Rashbam 22 11 45 that they held], and in any case he does not have the power to argue that his permission will not be sanctified by their prayer, and she believed A minute, on the one hand, there is reason to say that a place that is not owned by the worshipers cannot be forbidden, and on the other hand, if he screams, lest they should not hear him, and he should not scream, and not for any reason.

And Shu'a [C. Shaza 17:17] 20 of a strait that many people held with permission, it is forbidden to spoil it, and the text of the HaSma'a, KML in this way when they held it with permission, it is forbidden to spoil it, Masha'k when they held it without permission .
Who is all that many are now holding in front of us claiming for them and Amerinan Dabodai in the permission they held it ak.
And most of all, for our purposes, there is room to say yes that they claim that they received permission from the neighbors to pray there, and from M.M. it should still be said that he claims that he gave them permission to pray but not to sanctify and forbid his house.

h) It is also possible that there is something to be added to make it easier because there was no regular Knesset here, and I did not inquire into the details of the case here, and the Lichosh there regarding the Halacha [SKA5].

9) It is also possible to add to this that there is apparently no Aron Kodesh and Saath in the above-mentioned Bahkenas, although the tribe of Levi [Hat Si. Lev] who wrote to make it easier in this way that there is no Aron Kadesh and Saath relies on the opinion of the present generation The prohibition is only above the ark of the Holy of Holies, and it is permitted above in the Synagogue, but as we explained above, this is not the opinion of the first ones quoted in the Bi and Shu'a, but that we wrote a dish to learn from the words of Rambam ACP regarding the area of the Yehanas itself, and also a dish to attach The Rambam's opinion ACP as a side addition, emphasized on the B'i that if he had seen the answer of the glory of this generation he would have brought the B'i along with the rest of the Rishonim.

j) It is also possible, according to what is said there, that this is not really a bahanas, but a house and a witness for Menachah and Arab prayers, and I did not go into the length of clarifying the laws that belong to it since the reality of this is not clear to me.

At the end of the matter and the conclusion of the issue, it is necessary to make it worse since it is not against the territory of the synagogue, and at the very least there are several parties to add here as branches to ease and remove from this prohibition, the least of which is not explicitly stated in the GM.

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

One must discuss what was decreed (Sukkah 3:1) for the one who eats in a large sukkah and sent inside the house. By the way, but...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

One must discuss what was decreed (Sukkah 3:1) for the one who eats in a large sukkah and sent inside the house. in the shalchan, but he holds his food in his hand, and in the Mishnab [Sheha'c 3. Takkal 27] it means that he followed the halacha in which he did not rule, lest he should continue after our shalchan (I. Sukkah 3 1a), I will give it to him as if he had nothing to do with the shalchan at all This, which does not turn out to be one of the obligations of Sukkah to eat on the Sukkah, exactly, and what if he had nice dishes and proper couches above them for the Sukkah (Sukkah 20b) is not one of the obligations of Sukkah to be delayed, and "the actual Shalan is not to delay that there is a Shalan in the Sukkah while eating, A" 3 Damsad Shifra Dasukah Kilal (i.e. Rashi Sukkah 2) it is proper to shalchan in their eyes, MM is the fences of a yeshiva sukkah 2b' worthy of a dwelling and he is a yodor as he wills, and like what Damari' (2. 1) in the matter of partitions of Iron that does not disqualify the Sukkah AAG Daina Diret Arai, is worthy of the Arai in their eyes.
And also we see in the Shear HaZion a name that is taken to the main point and that the words of the Ramban emphasize that it is not a miri in the 23rd but a miri in the Sukkah that does not have a lesson to insert a shalchan in it (i.e. 69).
(And in the Mishnav it is mentioned in the Mishnav to put a taph in the shalhan into the Sukkah Afi' while sleeping, but its foundation is from the state, not at all, and even in the Mishnav it is not for delay, etc.).

But one should look at the one who eats with his hand but reads and consults the book while eating, and the book is placed on the table, whether in the 23rd I say, lest it be followed by our table or not.

And it seems that lest he should continue with the meal, as Damari', K. 33, lest he should continue with regard to a small meal before the minach, and with regard to reading in the book of AJ Delgavi before the Ma'ariv prayer, we find in the rulings that forbade lest he should continue, that is, on the part of the time, lest he should continue with his study and not stop his study, we mean to continue for an additional time In an existing situation, but for our purposes we have not heard any suggestion that it should be continued on reading a book, and in fact he is in the middle of a meal and is obligated on the other hand to be in the sukkah. every moment obliged In the sukkah, and in some places it means not like that, but only if it is required of him by the leadership to go forward from the law], in any case, in the matter of the meal, it is possible to waive his ruling lest it continue since the table is not used for food.

And who is it that there is no reason to say dela Plug and as long as the table is used for his consumption while eating, it has already been ruled that he may use the table for his food and then continue after we have sent more than the sukkah, and he will not use it.

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

It is measured according to all between the suns, only if everything between the suns has been allocated, it becomes allocated, otherwise it provides lenient, this is the opinion of the majority of the arbitrators and the decision of the Mishnav and the PMG, and in the first place it is appropriate to be afraid of the strict ones not to single out a base in part of the Behash if you want to use it on Shabbat , (and as will be shown...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is measured according to all between the suns, only if everything between the suns has been allocated, it becomes allocated, otherwise it provides lenients, this is the opinion of the majority of the judges and the decision of the Mishnav and the PMG, and to begin with, it is appropriate to fear the strict ones not to single out a base in a part of the Behash if you want to use it on Shabbat )

Sources: apparently the definition in this since the object was forbidden in the Torah of the prohibition of Shabbat, and what the judges took between the suns, RL, the beginning of the Shabbat, which is when it comes between the suns, and on the other hand, Yayoi also in C. Shay, who recalled that if the moles were in the rabbinical school, it is assigned, and if they were not in the school "Sh is not assigned to Aish, and it does not land at all to be somewhat between the suns, and it is not in this.
And perhaps it should be compared to Din Nakhel, mixing it up between the DKIL suns as the HaMkilin in this and TLA.

And Yaoi' in the 20th century C. Shet Skit 9 of the language mentioned in the Shu'a where the entry of Shabbat was all between the suns, and it means that this is the end of the day for the voice of a dam to be somewhat between the suns is not prohibited, and perhaps we should learn from this language in the matter of who If he received a Shabbat that was determined according to the entrance of his Shabbat, then when he received it, there is surely an assigned prohibition, according to the Shash Dazli', that he is only doubting an assigned prohibition.

However, Shur Shafmag Ret AA at the end of the 20th sign, a model if he received Shabbat is determined according to between the suns, and in the PZ the entry of Shabbat was a dalma, and I. "2 in the Makoa Dazli' in the verse of the Delakn and what they will sit in the last verses, and it is necessary to note the simplicity of the Mishnab in the Skkaz Damiri Gabi Nar and set between the panes the word of the Lord took the candle of Shabbat, but there is a clear evidence from there that Afi' received Shabbat Daha was blessed by a man who did not accept the lighting of the Shabbat candle.

And in the body of the words of the Mishnab, the basis is only if it was all between the suns, but the one who did not receive a Shabbat to heal is also explained in his words 27 and in the Shear HaZion, there according to the Garaz, and it means very much there that everything between the suns was assigned is not assigned .

However, the judges of our time disagreed with this in the comments and additions of the above-mentioned Skit who brought several opinions on this, and that the PMG is explained as it is explained in the 20th century, and what was brought by my last words there which made it difficult from the Dasukah school, which means that they are also a little stricter than the school Hada despek is assigned by the school only in retrospect and not initially at the time of making the condition, and furthermore democse dasukha is a thing whose main purpose is Dauraita as they wrote there, and as I mentioned above the comparison in this to provide a mix of damatz in the school in the types of deirobin that the conditions that allow it is because it is spurred on.

And what they brought there in the name of the Grisha to make it stricter to begin with, it must be said that we disagree with the Shabal and the other judges of our time who ruled as completely as the Mishnab, this is simply the case that to begin with it should be made stricter in the above way, that is, in the way that one wants to use Shabbat with an object, to fix it at the entrance of Shabbat An understanding between the suns will not be the basis of this, since the mixing of the sun is in retrospect, and even in the case of doubt, it is only in hindsight that it can be easily corrected, and yet it has been found that almost all the arbitrators have taken the view that an allocation to a portion of the suns in retrospect is not assigned and in the first place is not reliable. G.

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

Even on Motzash there is a ma'ale in a kibitza if one can. Sources: Both with regard to Shabbat meals and with regard to Motzash, it is mentioned in Gm' Shabbat Kit AA, the language is olive, but in BHG [p. Keko] and Ran [Shabbat Mag Sa'' 2 Regarding Shabbat, Sukkah 12 EB Madhar regarding YoT] and more is mentioned...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Even on Mochash there is ma'aleh in the egg if he can.

Sources: Both with regard to Shabbat meals and with regard to Motzash, it is mentioned in Gm' Shabbat Kit AA, the language is olive, but in BHG [p. Keko] and Ran [Shabbat Mag Sa'ab with regard to Shabbat, Sukkah 12b Mada "R with regard to YoT] and further mention of a egg for the matter of Shabbat meals or YoT, and I. in Barchi C. Reza MS in this, despite what the arbitrators have learned this law of a egg for the matter of an important meal, I. in the Maga There, Ak means Deha Mochash.

And this is how the Rabbi seems to believe there, and it is also explained to Hedia with half the shekel there, to begin with, as an egg, and also in his shift, 29:20, to eat as an egg and as an olive, [regarding the addition of a third meal that will cost him for a meal with a queen ].

And agag that in a rabbi [addendum to the OT] it is explained that the Hagar's driver is in fact an olive tree, it must be said that Dashma thought so even on Shabbat, since the Hagar in his commentary C. S. learned a reformation of the law from what was approved in the G.M. Shabbat and in the matter of Mochas, and yet it turns out that he compares them also to the matter of an olive, and it is a bit pressing to settle the hump of the pressure there based on the mikili, the Hagra Hi' to him in the case of a decision.

And according to column 20, with regard to Shabbat in B.C., it read as an olive, and with regard to Motzash in C.S. as an egg, we were because in B.C.S., he used the language of the gm' there.

However, in many of the ruling scholars, the word "olive" is really mentioned in the stoma regarding Malwa Malka, and the stoma of their words means that they meant "olive" as it were, according to A. A. H. C. Sh. ' La, and it is also possible that he took the part of the Shebra in the Shu'at of Rei Schlesinger H. C. Kid Aish, except that his opinion is renewed to part of the essence of eating and to renew from it the Halacha according to the rules that were explained that on Shabbat and Mochash it is said that the tongue will never be in order, and yet Heishi For geniuses because without an egg it does not have the rate of regularity of a meal as above.

And from M.M. one who cannot eat an egg, it means in Mishnav that at the third meal he will eat an olive, see C. Ratza S.K.

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

לא מחוייב למחות בו אבל יש לדאוג לכך שהוא יהיה מודע לשיטות בנושא ולהכרעת הפוסקים. מקורות: הנה דעת המחבר בסי' ח סט"ז שבאופן כזה צריך לברך, ואמנם הכרעת המשנ"ב בזה שלא לברך כיון שי"א (בסי' יח) שלילה הוא זמן ציצית ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is no obligation to protest it, but one must ensure that he is aware of the methods on the subject and the decision of the arbitrators.

מקורות: הנה דעת המחבר בסי' ח סט"ז שבאופן כזה צריך לברך, ואמנם הכרעת המשנ"ב בזה שלא לברך כיון שי"א (בסי' יח) שלילה הוא זמן ציצית ולא היה ספק בברכה, מ"מ כ' האחרונים דאין דין מחאה כשיש לו פוסק לסמוך עליו [הובא בספר דבר סתר והיינו מלבד דעה שהופקעה מהלכה כמובן ופשוט], וע' רמ"א בחו"מ סוף הל' דיינים.

והנה הילד מחוייב מדרבנן במצוות, בין אם החיוב עליו או על האב (מח' רש"י ורמב"ן ותוס'), וקי"ל לדידן שברכה לבטלה דרבנן, נפק"מ לספק ברכה לבטלה, בפרט שיש כאן בענייננו גם דעת החינוך [שיכול לברך מספק חיוב אם רוצה], ואכמ"ל הובא בנשמ"א, על אף שהחינוך לא נפסק להלכה, מ"מ א"צ לבוא לזה בניד"ד לזה כי גבי הקטן הוה ליה ב' דרבנן במקום שיש לו פוסק לסמוך עליו לברך על הציצית.

ומ"מ אין לטעון שהאב פטור מלחנכו בפרטי הדינים, דזה אינו עי' בריטב"א סוכה ב, ורמ"א או"ח סי' יז ג ודוק.
הלכך ליידע וללמד אותו בודאי צריך שזהו עיקר ענין החינוך וגם צורת ולמדתם אותם (וע' קידושין ל ויו"ד סי' רמה), אבל אם רוצה לנהוג כהמחייבים בברכה הרשות בידו, ואין אביו מחוייב לעמוד נגדו ולעכבו מדבר זה, שכן גם אם היה גדול ונוהג כדעות אלו לא היה מחוייב למחות בו, גם אם הוא בור ולא הגיע להוראה כיון שנוהג כאתם הדעות.

ולגוף דברי המחבר שמחייב לברך בישן בטליתו בלילה, ולכאורה דבריו הם רק כהסוברים שאין דין ציצית בלילה כלל, וצ"ע שבסי' יח הביא המחבר ב' הדעות בזה (אם פטור כסות לילה או בלילה או בכסות המיוחד ללילה) ושם לא הכריע, ואולי יש ליישב דהמחבר צירף את הצד שבשינה כיון שאינו מכוון למצוה אינו יוצא ידי חובה (עי' בזה בבה"ל סי' ס ס"ד ושו"ת מנחת שלמה ח"א סי' א ועי' קובץ שיעורים כתובות אות רנ), ואע"ג שבישן בטליתו ביום לא מיירי המחבר שיטרך לברך אחר כך, אפשר שלא הקיל אלא בצירוף שתיהן, דהיינו גם שינה וגם בלילה.

ואמנם במנחת שלמה שם חשש שאם אינו מקיים אז מצוה עובר איסור להשיטות המחמירין בבה"ל שם, אבל יש לומר דהמחבר לא חשש לזה, דלא אלים חסרון כוונה להטיל עליו איסור ללבוש הבגד כיון שהוא עשוי בכשרות, ומעין זה מה שאין איסור "אינו זבוח" ואבר מן החי באכילת בשר שנשחט כדין, ורק לענין ברכה בצירוף מה שהוא לילה החמיר המחבר.

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

אדם שמצב כזה מפריע לו, שזה כולל את רוב האנשים, אינו יוצא ידי חובה בסוכה כזו אם אינה מוגנת הרמטית מן העכברים, וגם אסור לו לבנות סוכה מלכתחילה במקום כזה. מקורות: לכבוד הגאון המפואר המפורסם וכו' רבי גמליאל רבינוביץ שליט"א מח"ס גם ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אדם שמצב כזה מפריע לו, שזה כולל את רוב האנשים, אינו יוצא ידי חובה בסוכה כזו אם אינה מוגנת הרמטית מן העכברים, וגם אסור לו לבנות סוכה מלכתחילה במקום כזה.


In honor of the famous, magnificent genius, etc., Rabbi Gamliel Rabinovitz Shalita, I will also walk

His Holiness Rabbi and KTS

I received his letter regarding making a sukkah in place of mice and as we know, several rulings of great teachers on the matter have already been published, and there is no need for me and my demeanor.
And since I am not writing a part of this, I will return to the main points that were explained in the words of the arbitrators in this.

And I am not entering here to discuss the reality of which specific places and what the halachic definition of each and every place is, but what is being discussed is general, what is the law in the way that it is known that there are common mice in the place around the sukkah and by their nature the mice may and may enter the sukkah, and in places whose definition is provided, each and every thing should be discussed and studied.

And here it is clear that a mouse is a miserable animal in the eyes of people today and for ordinary people nowadays they will stay away from staying in the company of a mouse and many people will not agree to eat in the company of this animal, while knowingly spending the night in its company is difficult to find someone who would not care about it.

And in any case, his character has what is mentioned in Gm' Sukkah 26 for the matter of Kiki that he is sorry and is exempt from the Sukkah, and also in Shoa 3 30033, flies and fleas are mentioned and we were the same, and it should not be argued that he is sorry only in the way that he suffers in every moment but also in suffering Whenever the environment is not safe and suffering abounds, there is a reference in the RMA MS concerning thieves, (and a reference in the GM concerning the guardians of pardesim, which is somewhat related to this matter).

And it is not only for the Rabbinical Rabbi who believes that a person can be sorry for something for which there is no way to be sorry. It was brought up in the 20th century in the explanation of the halachic law, but also to divide the opinion of the Rabbinic Rabbi, and in particular here it is clear that the way of the experts of knowledge is to regret it, and the law of the experts is a state. Degm' and ai' in the 20th century.

And from the point of view of the one who says that he is not bothered by mice at all, this is a falsification that there is no exemption, sorry, and as for the one who says that he is not afraid that mice will enter and therefore does not bother him, he should be like the one who is not afraid of thieves in a place where thieves are noted, and I. in 22 C. 17 from SD.

And M.M. Petor Sofim does not permit from the beginning to build a sukkah in such a way that he is freed when he is sorry as explained in Shoa 3. 3034, and the details of the laws are further in the Rama'a and Shnav there.

And it should be noted that a regretful deptor is said not only for the kula but also for the khumra and not only on the first night but also for the other nights. C. Talt s.a., and from the Shnav there, and not only on the part of the person who ate outside of the sukkah, therefore such a sukkah must be avoided completely on the first night meal and in the case of one who abstains and maintains such a sukkah on other nights in any sense there is no mitzvah in this, and in the case of whether one passes a prohibition, depending on whether it is a crime In the same condition as above.

And it is impossible to completely disqualify this sukkah even when there is no other sukkah at all, if it is a sukkah where one can eat there, because in this one is being judged for a sukkah that is suitable for eating and not suitable for sleeping, ibid. And in the rest of the book there and Achmal, and the definition of this sukkah for the matter of eating must be discussed, and it varies from person to person, but a person who is careful can claim that he is also careful about eating because that is the way many people are to be careful, and i.e. what I wrote above about the words of the Rabbi.

And to put the smallest ones in the place of mice if the reality is that there is danger, then it is prohibited to do so because of danger as there was already a practice in this, and the crucifixion is the reality in this and Afi' in a big way when he sleeps in such a place if there is danger in this.

And I saw in the name of the Rabbi Farid Shalita that DLPZ mentioned that a person who has such a sukkah should spend up to five percent of his assets to build a sukkah that will be legally kosher, since without this it is not kosher, and he brought advice there to completely seal the sukkah in such a way that there would be no fear of mice entering to the place, and it is appropriate and desirable to propose the idea to the companies that market sukkas for assembly, so that they can check whether it is possible to manufacture and market such a sukka that is sealed in such a way that there is no fear of mice entering at all.

In conclusion, a sukkah that mice may enter has a fundamental concern about using it in sukkahs either on the first night or on the other nights, and between eating and sleeping, and in some cases the fear is the main reason, unless it does not interfere with him eating and sleeping around mice, in which case it is permissible.


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