Seemingly the simplicity of the judges that is impossible. The Rauni Hall in Or Lezion allowed. Sources: Begum and Shu'a I. that it is possible to mix with salted fish even though they were eaten as they were alive, and the Mishnab Dahua believed that since they were eaten as they were alive, there is no significance in them to cooking them with salted water, and we were...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Seemingly the simplicity of the judges that is impossible.
The Rauni Hall in Or Lezion allowed.

Sources: Begum and Shu'a I. that it is possible to mix with salted fish even though they are eaten as they are alive, and the Mishnab has believed that since they are eaten as they are alive, there is no significance in cooking them. And apparently something that has no meaning for cooking is the opinion of the Mishnav that it is not considered cooked and it is a very understandable opinion, and for the PZ it will not be possible to mix a dish with pasteurized cheese because apparently pasteurization has no meaning in the taste and shape of the cheese and the reality is that this is the case.

And it should be noted that there is a distinction between vegetables that are praised by cooking and vegetables that are depreciated by cooking, and that there is an idea that cooking is not beneficial to the vegetable, and it is there that the cooking made a change in the vegetable, and there is also a side of superiority to the one who cooked it and waves of ignorance. Who wishes in this way (and there are many people who use cooking so it is not appropriate to say that his opinion is idle), but here we do not make any change by cooking from Man Lima to Len that this cheese has a virtue in what it is cooked.

And Yaoi' in Barash Yosef in Bizza 16 AA who was content with the matter of fruits that are better when they are alive than cooked, and in Bishol, is it considered a stew, and there is the doubt because Daikha dedifa liya in boiled, and the evidence that Bishol and sometimes they are cooked, but something that cooking does not detract from it, does not add to it, and does not change it Nothing, he apparently wasn't satisfied with that at all.

And what was brought up in the name of the Maharashem (Deat Torah 31366) to permit cooked cheese, it is possible that the term for a hard cheese such as yellow cheese as well as our salty cheese is certainly changed by cooking.

However, the Raoni Shavuot Or Lezion HC 1752 Tshuva 2 also allowed to use pasteurized cheese in our time.

And Yaoi' in the Rashba's Shu'at 24 C. R.N. not cooked, what is the rule, and since nothing can be proven from there, Dehri did not mention at all that with regard to cooked cheese it is permissible, and rather that only by salting he had a side to allow because the salting changes the taste of the cheese and its shape after cooking, and if we are correct in his words that cheese It is allowed to garnish a dish when it is cooked, but hard cheese must still be interpreted as above, and in any case, his words are no evidence for our case.
However, the Maharashem also called Meiri to heal the cheese that was cooked and his words 36 have no rai' for our case as we will explain.

And let's see more like the answer of the Rashiba itself. It is possible to bring evidence to our words from what is explained there in the Rashiba that salt is not a dish, and it is proven from his words, that is, that it is cooked is not a stew, after all he did not mention in his words that it is because the salt is void, in the world the salt is not void just as the egg is not void for the fish as explained there according to the mishna and the gm, but it should be said that it is because of the taste as above since there is no significant and substantial change by cooking salt, the is not a stew.

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

לא אבוא לפסוק הלכה בנושא נדוש זה, רק אבוא בקצרה לשאלה שביקש השואל להתמקד בה האם שייך שיהיה בזה בעיה, והתשובה שגם באופן כזה יש כמה חששות אפשריים ונזכיר חלק מהם. א' קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה אם ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

לא אבוא לפסוק הלכה בנושא נדוש זה, רק אבוא בקצרה לשאלה שביקש השואל להתמקד בה האם שייך שיהיה בזה בעיה, והתשובה שגם באופן כזה יש כמה חששות אפשריים ונזכיר חלק מהם.

א' קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה אם המחיצות לא נעשו כתנאי הוקף לדירה ובפרט אם יש חללי בניה וכדומה או כל חלל שמערער את כשרות המחיצות ליותר מבית סאתים, ובכל אופן שנחשב קרפף שלא הוקף לדירה אסור לטלטל בו יותר מבית סאתים כדאי' בסי' שעב ס"ב.

ב' מה שאינו רואה את כל המחיצות לפניו יש מפוסקי זמנינו והחזו"א שחששו בזה שאין בכה"ג חזקת כשרות על המחיצות.

ג' אם עשו הקיף מחיצות לכל המקום בלא שיור כדין, ועי' סי' שצז משנ"ב סק"ז שכ' שם שהגזירה אטו רה"ר ומשמע שא"א להקל גם בטלטול ברחוב בפני עצמו, ומיירי גם במוקפת מחיצות, ע"ש בשו"ע ס"א וע"ש עוד ס"ה, וכל הנידון שם אפי' באופן שהעיר מוקפת לגמרי ויש לה דלתות כדין כמבואר שם בשעה"צ סק"ה, ולא משמע דמיירי רק באופן שההקיף חשיב לא הוקף לדירה.

ד' אם יש דרך הרבים עוברת באופן מפולש בלי דלתות כדיני דלתות כמ"ש בסי' שסד ס"ב ומה שנוהגין העולם להקל בצוה"פ מחמת שמצרפין הדעות שאין לנו רה"ר כ' המשנ"ב שם סק"ח שבעל נפש לא יסמוך על זה.

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

There is no evidence that there is a mitzvah in this. And on the other hand, there is also an apparently agreed prohibition that does not exist in this. Sources: Ya'vei' in Lent Kaa 1A about the candle with which a miracle was performed by Rabbi Ben Dosa and fueled until Mochash and at Mochash they brought light from it for separation, and there was a place for the well that there is in it...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is no evidence that there is a mitzvah in this.
And on the other hand, there is also an apparently agreed prohibition that does not exist in this.

Sources: Ya'vei' in Lent Kaa 1a about the candle with which a miracle was performed by Rav Ben Dosa and fuel until Mochash and Mochash they brought light from it for the Havdalah, and there was a place for the well that in this there is a ma'ale dachiyon da'itabida biya hada mitzvah liabida biya mitzvah ahariti, As for mixing, and so the rulings also regarding the wax of the synagogue candles to use it for a mitzvah candle.

However, in the commentary (attributed to Rashi) on Lent there P. that afterwards they extinguished it so as not to enjoy miracles, and yet what they took in the GM about that candle from which they brought light for the separation is only to make us hear that after that they no longer used this candle (and only for the purpose of a mitzvah the kilo to use an act of miracles where they had to because they had no other fire at the time, just as the kilo in the matter of lighting a Shabbat candle as above mentioned in the act cited in Gm' there), and on the other hand, even in the interpretation it is not proven to interpret yes, it is difficult to say that the interpretation came to explain why it only burned until then and no more , i.e. since the miracle caused it to light for some reason it finally went out, but the reason they used it for a candle is possible because Databid etc.

However, in the Mishnah and in the Gemara, at the end of the egg, there are several laws, it is explained that a flame has no substance in it, and only from Darbanan, you will buy some things also in a flame, such as in a thing that has a literal, there, and yet for our purposes, there is a place to say that a DAG should not use precisely the flame that was used for a candle Sabbath.
And indeed, we note that there are certain laws that were also said in Shalvet, i.e. in Bitza there, and also regarding the candle on Shabbat we note that the Shachaz [Rachz 20] mentioned that there is a second candle from the first light.

And it should also be noted that Dahana mentions in Shoa S. Tarched that one should use a candle on Shabbat at the end of the Yok, while regarding Shabbat it is mentioned in S. Rahats Sho. The candle of lighting the candle of Shabbat
(And what they didn't mention is that it is permissible to use the same candle in person that was left over from Shabbat AH, this is included in what they mentioned above regarding the synagogue's wax, that is, you).

And it should also be noted that in the 19th century Hanukkah candle S. Tared mentioned several mitzvah candles that are lit there that it is permissible to light them apart from each other, and he did not mention at all that there is a priority to take from a mitzvah candle to a mitzvah candle, so perhaps this means that with regard to the flame it was not said This matter of because I will serve, etc.

So far we have not found it necessary to say that he has to light a candle left over from lighting the Shabbat candle for a Havdalah candle.

And on the other hand, it seems to know how many rulings should not do so, and it is the explanation of the Gra and Hamed Moshe that the Mishnav brought in Hal Hanukah there SS Tared, as well as in Eshel Avraham of Botshatash there, and it is true that in C. Kand SC Ned the Mishnab took as an opinion in the "A. Makila, but surely one should not exclude something that is a prohibition for other judges, if it is implied that there is an exclusion in it as above.

And we have to look at the body of the rulings that regarding the remains of the wax 20 to permit and regarding the lighting of the candle itself 20 to prohibit ACP in some cases and some opinions in all cases.

And it seems that their taste is valid because in the flame I didn't say, because and I've been, etc. for the reason mentioned that there is no real flame, but because in the transfer of the flame there is a denigration of the Shachak in the remains of wax that remain.

And it is also explained in Shoa C. Kand C. D. A denarius of Bahkenas after a layer is allowed to light a candle of sand from it, and in Mishnab Sec. Na Dela is better than a Hanukkah candle after the time of his mitzvah, and also in a candle of Havdalah 20 Habe "L" and its origin in the 16th century in the Hanukkah there is a saqj that after they discriminated against him, his commandment ended.

Therefore, if Nima Dagra and Hamed Moshe in Hal Hanukkah C. Tared acknowledge the words of the Shu'a and Shnab there in S. Kand, therefore there is no prohibition regarding lighting a candle on Shabbat after Motzash when the time for his mitzvah has already passed, etc. Q. In fasting there (even though there is no clear evidence from the Gam' Shem Ladidan Dachal regarding the matter of lighting from candle to candle Efi' with a Hanukkah candle of Issan Taliya in Ashli Rebarbi and Achmal), but we also do not have clear evidence that there is a mitzvah that prefers to use a Shabbat candle to light from it A candle of difference.

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

In a normal case it is allowed. Sources: See Och Shana 2 and Shem Shenz SA and sg. And the summary of the words is from the author Shenz 3 in their eyes Oka Satyim only if he goes to Rhar only and in the Harma also if he goes to Carmelit in the city, and for the one who goes to Carmelit outside the city. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In a normal case it is allowed.
Sources: See Okh Shana B and Shem Shenz SA and SG.
And the author's summary of the matter is that in their view, Oka Satim only if he goes out to the Rhar only, and in the Rama's view also if he goes out to Carmelit in the city, and to the Kora when he goes to Carmelit outside the city or to another Ra'i who is not mixed with these, there is no condition that needs to be allowed if he is forced to Q. In S. Shenz 3 and E. in S. Shana 2, therefore here that he is both a force and there is a BK Satyim in Ekah there is no concern, and even without it in the 4th there is a permission for the respect of mankind Efi' without his power and Efi' in it is not involved as a mash Rama 3. Year 3.

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

It should not be permitted even in a place that is not permitted by the majority of the Torah, and even if the little one does it on his own, but if he has reached education, it is actually difficult to make it easy. Or...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It should not be permitted even in a place that is not the authority of the majority according to the Torah, and even if the little one does it on his own, even if he has reached education, it is actually difficult to make it easy.

Sources: We found a few things that allowed Efi' to come out of clothing, but only in things that have a clear purpose, such as a piece of jewelry or something related to clothing [in conjunction with the nobles of Zaara, so here even if it is related to clothing it does not belong], or something that is void of clothing, or varnish." In the matter of not being afraid that if it falls, it will not come to shake like a thing of disaster like fluff to its nidatha Sha, Na, which also does not belong completely, the definition of rescue from sorrow is that which comes to save from something that is a way for people to regret it, and like the other permits that allowed for sorrow in other places] or the seal of the slave when it is made in such a way that there is nothing to shake it after it falls or something that you will certainly not remove such as strands of hair, But in such a thing that there is no point in allowing it, which is not a betrayal and is not a jewel and is not void of anything and is not tied to anything and is worth being humbled and is not fixed in his mouth at all, and it is in general things that are not a fabric in which a dilemma was feared, we will fall and I will let it go, so I will allow it.

And with regard to the claim that all of the fabric was not cut off [Shabbat 6], first of all it is precisely in the sewing [I. Sha, 23 and M.B. Pad], and secondly, if you sew, it is only useful if the way is that way, and here it is not the way to do that, and there are variations This is contradicted by the scribes as to what the condition will be the way, the Dhamb where the SKPAB brought in the name of the Rashbaa Debai' a need or use for the garment, and in the Toss [Nach 11 45 21] the language is mentioned that it is a thing that should be done with all the clothes and it is The beauty of the garment, and on the other hand, in the MM that were brought in the annotations and added on Mishnav there which led to contradictory differences in this.

And I. in the book Tuamiya Chaim Zacho who extended it and I relied on his words, and to the body what he extended there to discuss the rai' from the one who eats with his mouth, I did not understand why he extended it, because he does not intend to use it continuously for the body but for the act of eating only, and what he discussed there on the part that if it is connected there is no dilemma in this, I did not understand, After all, the fence given by the sages that will be considered connected in this rule and will be excluded from the derivation rule is that it will be woven.

And when the little one was taken from himself and he didn't get to education and he was a Carmelite see Rama Shemag.

And according to what the Mishnav explained there, a first opinion in the Rama'a that a child who has reached education is all obligated to retire him, if he does it on his own, and a second opinion in the Rama'a, which is the opinion of the Shu'a that only his father is obligated to retire him, and also just the M.B. Shasev, Med ACP on the matter The prohibition of Darbanan and perhaps Dauriyta as well, and the MAB in S. Shemag, 7 brought the decision of the Hia David Dauriyta Azli' as the first opinion and Darbanan as the second opinion, and the opinion of other Rashunim [cit. The father is also not obligated to separate it and it is permissible to lay the couch in his hands, and in the explanation of Halach C. Shemag means that he did not rule out this permission altogether.

And from Mm in the Nidd here there is another claim to Hamura dha dati lathoi belongs also to the father in the garment of the little one, to the shi' of the maga sha, a heart in the name of the tos' sa ev.

And even if it is said that there is a holkin 17 [and in Sefer Tuamiya Haim Zakko according to the Ramban quoted in S. Shet regarding the dinar], does Mm Annan Kiel Dachl what is forbidden for a grown-up must not be allowed for a small son to do [Sho'a Shmg for PMash in Bhal there], and even though there are some who disagree with this, there are the aforementioned words of the General Assembly, and to add two votes together to allow a small one against this Shu'a and the last ones who decided like it and also against this General Assembly, he A bit tight, and even in the worst case it is not necessary in the opinion of the Ramban, because of the above-mentioned Kahamga in the name of the Tos', and as he wrote in the above-mentioned book, the Ramban, which was cited there, does not give me any advice on the matter of giving to the little one, but only because of his feelings. [by C. Shet], and there is still no opinion regarding the matter of giving the little one hands that there is no fear of a dilemma regarding the father.

(And it can be argued that I would like to forbid it in the opinion of the Ramban from the small reason if it is not explained in the Gramma in the aforementioned book what is said in this dish the difficulty of the Toss, and there is also what he brought there in the name of the Gramma in the above-mentioned book).

!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

In other laws such as Irov Tebshilin and more we found that they divided between forgetting rape and forgetting a crime, but here we did not find that they divided about this, and the point seems natural that there should be a kind of uniqueness in the tool that will be used for the assignee, and whatever was not on purpose, there is no distinction here for the assignee, and he had...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In other laws, such as Irov Tebshilin and more, we found that they divided between forgetting rape and forgetting a crime, but here we did not find that they divided about this, and the point seems natural that there should be a kind of uniqueness in the tool that will be used for the target, and whoever was not on purpose, there is no uniqueness here for the target, and it was a crime for him to remember and a crime in what he forgot.

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