If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer. Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving and after all he was appointed as Kishoin custodian...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer.

Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving, and he was appointed as a Kishoin guard who already paid him his wages and his wages and appointed him as an idle laborer, etc., but if he actually earns exactly the same At the moment there is no reason according to Halacha to pay Shabbat to an employee on sick days.

But it is necessary to discuss Shabbat payments to the employer, whether the employer can demand this, since according to the standard the employer should have received work at that time and paid for it, and in practice he is paying normal wages without actually receiving work, and all of this was caused by the tortfeasor, and there was room to discuss the arguments of Physical in such a way that the damage is certain if you defined it as physical according to the definitions of physical explained in the arbitrators.

However, there is a place to bring a rai' different from the law of a Hebrew slave who harms his body, he pays Shabbat to his Lord [Bk 16:11] and if you say because a Hebrew slave his body is bought [Kiddoshin 16:11] MM, then also with regard to his daughter I say In the B.C. there [Paz 12] the person who has the bond pays Shabbat to her father, and it is also ruled in the Shoah C. Takhd 66 [ACP in the way that the deeds of her hands belong to her father] and the reason is because the deeds of her hands belong to her father According to Parash'i there, and not because of his right to be known [Ya'oi' there in the Gm that it is proven that it is not because of her right to be known, since the sentence there is also for the days between girlhood and matriculation, and it is also proven from the sentence in the Rama'a in Houm there in a way that is not close to the sending of Her father, since God is in his hand for the known, and yet I have run out of other works of hands, and also for such things, evidence must be brought from what the law is also in this 7, and who is Yaoi' Kiddoshin 4 12 and Dok, however the above evidence is clear that what vindicates The Shabbat for her father is his right for her handiwork], so it turns out that the person who pre-purchased another person's handiwork for a period of time and then harmed that worker, the harming person will have to pay Shabbat to the employer and pay for it.

And I looked at the book Pethai Hoshen 11:10, Damages, Chapter 11, Section 10, and in the comment there and brought up there several sides and options in the form of payment, but the main points of his words are as I wrote that the tortfeasor shall pay the employer for the damage he caused, and when the tortfeasor directly pays the Shabbat payments to the employee, the employer shall pay The employee only has the difference in this, and in his conclusion it seems to him that the main thing is that it is like an insurance company that the employer pays the salary to the employee as insurance premiums and the injured party pays the employer what they damaged as they decide on an insurance matter and we were like that.

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

There are some judges who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touch and sight, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There are some umpires who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touching and seeing, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some of the rascals, etc. P for the people of Sephard, and the Ashkenazi people even relax the gesture of affection with additional combinations and there are opinions among the Ashkenazi scribes (from the opinions presented in the Rama'a and Noach) that completely relax.

Sources:
In the opinion of the Rashba [Shut Ha C. Alef Kafah] the prohibition in his wife is only Nada, and thus the meaning of the Gm' in Berchot 9a and Irubin 18 is that only in a looker there is a prohibition and in the Parshii there it means Demeiri Akaf Afi' in a man's wife, (wm) There is no difficulty from the G.M. Dahari Afi' the prohibition of hoshta banda, which was practiced throughout Israel, its prohibition is not determined by the state of the Dgm 64 and 66. Complete and yet also the use of a woman is prohibited in the Kiddoshin of the Holy Bible and there is a place to include hoshta in the laws of the use of a woman, but it is the same in the Meiri Kiddoshin for the purpose of watering which is the use of affection as explained in the case of Neda in the inscriptions, but from the meaning of the third part of Dekidoshin there it means a rightful act on the part of affection but on the part of all Use, and perhaps it should be divided between the extension of use, such as the one that raises a land registry for him, to the extension of giving from his permission to her, and according to the Shu'a [which will be cited below] use of a woman is prohibited only in the use of affection as explained in the language of Hedia), however due to " 5 [The Hour of the Letters Shear Kof Kedushot HaZivg] 20 to renew the prohibition even in one's wife, and who is the Shela at the end of his words, it is possible that he agreed to the Rashba Aish.

And in the language of the Samak, the commandment of the Lord is not to lecture from his hand near the woman, and there are those who have pointed out according to Rashi Erubin 18, 18, that he recited, we were appointed, and we were the one who looked, as the words of the Hagami, and the Saamik shortened the words of the Hagami, and therefore there is no rai' for our matter. ' Not for the matter of AA (as Parashi who interprets part of the Su' there in the AA) and KS for the matter of a vacant post.

According to the Halacha Shu'a and the Rama'a in Aha 3:16, we discussed some matters of affection, what are their rulings regarding a woman who is not his wife, and the author was stricter than the Rama'a, in all the details of the laws, but even the author there did not mention at all the prohibition of lying, but Only the prohibition of words of affection, and even though the Rama'a brought in his words the above-mentioned words of the Rashba, and there it is mentioned that it is also permissible to reach out. However, the language of the House of Shmuel there on the Rama (in the part where the Rama brought the opinion of the Rashba) that in this he came to allow eating from a bowl and a hand, and the language of the Rama "in all these things" is really a tsa that ends with the L. of the House of Shmuel means that until now he was a party to forbidding hoshta, and a shout that it was not mentioned either in the language of the author or in the language of the Rama, until now he was a party to prohibit hoshta in a woman who is not his wife, but only mentioned things about affection (according to the author) and eating from one bowl (in the first opinion presented in the Rama, which is The opinion of Benjamin Ze'ev and apparently even in Benjamin Ze'ev's face he did not remember to forbid hoshta, [and Shur Bagan Na'ul 13 p. Tia which he brought from some of the latter who learned in Binyamin Ze'ev to forbid hoshta as well, and perhaps this is how the Bish learned as well, and this is the darkest of all]) , and C.E.
And in a hurry it is necessary to say Derek Lafaha Damilta in the explanation of the Rashba's method, even though the main part of what was brought in the RMA was not brought to the matter of this detail of Hushta and M.M. even in the RMA itself it was taught in the MACHSH.

Regarding the custom of the Sephardi today, in practice I have heard different customs regarding this, and even among the Ashkenaz it seems that there is no absolute custom to make it completely easy in raids, and 11 will ask his rabbis.

And Yaoi' in the book makes sense of the parable in the wilderness that brought many sources to this discussion (and many of the sources in this answer are according to what was brought there), and what he brought there in the name of some latter (the thousand shields recited in the name of a greedy and pleasant field for the sight of the firstborn a leaf of Katsag) who commented on the custom that the sun revolves With the fourth species and the women take from his hand and bless, above, there is no evidence from there that the latter prohibited handing at random, it is discussed there about a duty whose essence is to hand to women regularly and continuously and this is a derogatory thing as explained in the Mishnah at the end of Kiddoshin and in the commentaries there, and in particular when it is desired and intended for the sake of a mitzvah that we must inform who does not do a commandment in this but the opposite, so that he does not toil for the sake of heaven in a thing that is the opposite of the honor of heaven.

And Yeovi' to Harb from Butshatash in Ezer Mekodesh AHA C. 122 Delphi the explained in Shoa Yud C. Kase S.D. A handa is allowed to be handed over with her left hand to hand to her husband on the table. Hushta and also belongs to the Hasidic tradition to be careful when it is easy even when there are many people there (A.H., R.L. and in particular when there are many people there then there is no fear of convergence of opinion according to the Mishka who rule on the matter of eating from one bowl where many are eating, but because there really is no convergence there that many people eat, and perhaps from the point of view of convergence, it was touched upon that when there are many there is not so much fear that it will come to convergence of opinion and it is a kind of law of singularity, and the main issue of many is noted in the above-mentioned Rama, and here it was brought to the Torah Zirof), and with the left hand, perhaps a keel in Hasidism well (Eh, and these last two words are not at all clear what he means, and perhaps he means that the one who reaches out with his left hand is a keel for the purpose of those who want to behave according to Hasidism who can rely on it, and he is a keel "well" meaning that he is heard with a margin that can be trusted, and this is the context at the beginning of his words, and perhaps a connecting word is missing at the end of his words, such as "Vodok well" or "Va'inah well" etc.)

And it seems that some have learned in his words that he is talking about the prohibition of handing out right next to what is explained here, but the reference at the beginning of his words will show that the whole thing discussed is about handing out food and drink on the table, what is prohibited in Banda Bedaut Madina, eg. It was understood why the left is allowed since it has no affection for such a change as in Nida, and for the welfare of Damilta mentioned that there are many for whom there is no fear that they will come close after this.

And I. in the book Gan Na'ul, chapter 16, which brought many sources to this matter, and I. I. also what he expanded on the opinion of the Meiri in Barakat there which is fundamental in his opinion as one of the ancient sources that may have prohibited Hoshta AKP in the first place, and I. To allow this

And just to pay things off, I will point out that what is said that the Shua is stricter on this than the RMA is not agreed upon and quite simply because the author is clear in his words that only the deception of affection explained there is prohibited, and the RMA brought several opinions on this and as stated in the title of the book Gan Neul there are a few recent ones who studied the opinion of the Benjaminites Ze'ev (which is the first opinion brought forth in the Rama'a) to forbid all hoshta, but it is really not clear in Benjamin Ze'ev's opinion that eating together from a bowl is a way of affection more than hoshta and has a source in the Gm' to forbid ai' on Shabbat 11 and in Tos' there, and hoshta Afi' banda in This is the agreed upon source from the Hag'm, and in particular that Benjamin Ze'ev's company was destroyed by the Rashba Darev Govria, and in particular that the Rama'a itself does not mean that the custom as Benjamin Ze'ev in his language 2 times what he mentioned regarding the custom, so in fact it is true to the Dina that the Rama'a does not exist More severe than the author.

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

In the latter (Hamakana and Rosh Pina) it means that God made it easier for him, and it also seems from the reasons given in Rashi and in the former concerning his sister, therefore, in fact, ACP should be permitted according to the details of his sister's law, and indeed in question and answer books from our time I found several opinions on this. Sources: The answer to this question...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the latter (Hamakana and Rosh Pina) it means that God made it easier for him, and it also seems from the reasons given in Rashi and in the former concerning his sister, therefore, in fact, ACP should be allowed according to the details of his sister's law, and indeed in question and answer books from our time I found several opinions on this.

Sources:
The answer to this question depends on whether the teaching that a son unites with his mother is a finished sermon and then here since it is not his mother it will be forbidden, or if he has an opinion and then here it will be permitted since it is practiced by his mother, and indeed one should say on the other hand Gisa Dafi' if it is a finished sermon mm in his mother Panuya Nima is correct, but this is not a dabamu aa mai ika to a mimer and it does not appear that they said their words to the chaplains, and more Dlagbi Aryot find that there are things that are not correct to be considered as a finished mother, Yaoi' Yavmot Daf Tzah aa, however there is a place to say on the other hand a gisa model If it is not a finished sermon, it should be prohibited, because in matters of marriage we find that there are things that are not suitable for consideration as his mother and 11, and apparently it turns out that it is a finished sermon. According to Rashi's opinion, that his sister is taught from a tkanta Danshi called 13 Delhalan etc. means that it is appropriate to permit a daurita from a sabra, and although in the case of his mother there is a rule that she is a daurita, but from his sister after the regulation of anchana 3 apparently we learn to permit his mother to convert, and here is what is written below in the words of the Makkanah in this), and the calculation of the things in the Gm' means that it is a finished sermon according to the words of the Gm', and

And ei' in Shu'at Bezal Hachacham 44 C. Yad who extended this tuba and brought several mm from Marshi (Kidoshin Pa 12 45 and Dar with his daughter) and Meiri (Kidoshin Pa 12) and Prisha (C. 22) SKA) and OAS (same SA) that it is a matter of detakif ytzaria according to the Hagm on the day of dela magri inish in her relatives and concluded that A to permit on the basis of this a dasma is gazach and the same, and what Rashi mentioned there The words of the Gam' Datkanta Danshi as 33 dela magri anishi in her relatives, the rai' rejected from there Dashma what dela magri inish in her relatives is only in a way that they judge them as definite relatives but in the case of magri in hu yitzhar, and with this last claim I do not understand his words, I am sure that the rules are an egg" They are according to reality, and the only reason for this is the regulation of the people of the 19th century. Each other in the manner of his mother, ready for everything.
And Ish who extended a great deal and tended to make it easier and mentioned there that in the matter of the halakhic halakhic halachah 37 skit we will be content with this, and also in the shunt Mishna halakhot Hiz 3 we are not satisfied with this and he made it much longer and tended to make it worse.

And whereas Dathan to this Yaoi' in Rosh Pina in Aha C. 22 what is said regarding the one who was sentenced for a privity with his sister Gabi Ma Damari' in the Gm at the same time they ruled on the privity Dafoya after the act of Amnon and Tamar etc. where they preceded the correction of the people of Kanha 3 was his sister as a rest Nuvaya, and his words require a Talmud Dam Hetam Kaimi' when his sister was left naked, so he was forbidden to David's court to decree a Nuvaya because of his sister's nakedness, and why else would he rule at all since the distinction of being a Nudity was forbidden before them, and especially the definition of Tamar and Amnon that is where his sister was from his father Tsa Dahari, daughter of Yaph Tavar, was a Damari' in the Sanhedrin 21 AA and in the Tos' Kiddoshin 22 AA, and she was permitted to sing, according to Hara Mizrahi A't in P. Shofitim 21 11.

And who in Rashi Sanhedrin 1111, and Radak Shmuel 2111 20 that David's daughter was the first to bring forth, and the PZ is truly condemned whether it is permissible to unite with Amnon or not (the main thing condemned in Rosh Pina there) is whether his sister Dagiot is lawful His sister is Dihadot, and if the head is Pina, learned Karshi Wardak A.K. understood in the raids that his dahut Dagiot is like his sister Dihadot for a single matter but not for the matter of marriage because of his sister from his father Eski' which is allowed as a masha in Yavmat Tzach and Shu'a Yod C. Rest (vaa "P there is an opinion in the Rama'a in the name of the OZ to forbid in the 23rd that the son was born in Judaism, but the simplicity is to allow it and I wrote about it in a different answer), and in this the rest of the difficulties on the head Pina are settled, for the sake of the uniqueness of his fear was not prohibited by the prohibition of pubic hair and only on the part of To permit that there is no suspect on his sister, the Lord is a place to permit and the OT excuses what is excused, and after an obstacle has occurred in a matter that is not a prohibition of nudity, they decree an exception also in a matter that is not a prohibition of nudity.

And I found in the mentioned answer books (in the shadow of wisdom and the Mishna Halkhot) that in the words of the Mkannah in the Kiddoshin Pa AB Shagak it is explained in the idea of the words that Amnon was his sister in the matter of Tiknta Danshi as the 3rd and not in the matter of a naked woman as if what I explained in the words of the head Pina above (and from the Mishna I also copied The opinion of the aforementioned Rashi Sanhedrin, after looking at his words internally, it seems that he understood in all his words that his sister's conversion is considered a matter of uniqueness, (we were from the beginning of his words that it is hard for Dakyon that David ruled for silence Damnon ak nima that ruled also for his mother Gamora ak "4, and there is no difficulty, after all his mother is his real mother, but Hazi' did not disagree with this, and also from the continuation of his words, that he came to settle that there was a stricter because it was not a complete virginity, (meaning thus he does not withdraw and is not afraid because it is not a complete virginity), and why did not Tefi settle From this, Desham is stricter since she is not his sister by law and not on behalf of her virginity, and also from the continuation of his words that the Yishuv rejected and brought evidence from a pervert 7 Model in 203 Shargilin 177 should be stricter in virginity, and why not the same as above here not only that she is not naked but she is not His sister included, and also what Demsaim the grantee, after Tkanta Danshi as 33, does not draw inish from her relatives and Ral Dehashta Sheri in his sister as Parshii [Sha'az Kai the grantee] ak then I will anoint you with a bodily form that he brought from Amnon and Tamar [according to It means that his sister was a convert who is the Rashi of the Sanhedrin and the above-mentioned Radak] that in this way the body of the Idna after Takneta Danchana 3 Shari), and it is true that in the books of the above-mentioned answers Mishka in the opinion of the Makana, and from the Mishnah the Laws there on the words of I didn't understand the reason.

And in the name of the AGM and the Grisha, I have heard to allow this, and the closing of the rumor means, that is, like his actual mother and not like the legal restrictions that his sister has, and the sla'ah in the sources of the things.

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

The law is clear in many rulings that such sanctifications are performed in the same way that the father has loyalty in the Bd instead of witnesses, he does not have the power to serve as witnesses of existence. b), and I have ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The law is clear in many rulings that such sanctifications are not valid, even though the father has loyalty to God instead of witnesses, he does not have the power to serve as witnesses of existence.

And first of all I will bring the words of the Garia, a member of Shabiar Ha'anin and Zal (Beit Na'eman, Hader Yad Ot B), and I have a reference point in Ha Dki'l Damkdash Ba'a, there is no fear in the sanctification of Efi', both of them admit and we wrote above the reason because this in his words is a debt To the latter, the sanctification did not apply at all, since the sanctification did not apply, so did DKIL Dov be faithful to his daughter to say that she sanctified either on behalf of his wife to sanctify her, or because the Torah gave him loyalty as a mash in P Haomer (page SD 11) a) How would the sanctification of a father be useful to his little daughter without any witnesses at all, and it would have been settled according to the Rashba's MS. Ger and Giyorat Mai Ika to Mimar Deshem does not belong to the prohibition of kinship, and ty' Shem dela phalug dachion d'main kadoshiin is a duty and not a pleasure without witnesses, therefore this also does not belong to a duty gach gach gach not gaha mahani The Torah did not divide by this, and the A.S. also in Kdoshi Her father, according to the Torah, did not have a father, but what she could do when she was older, Dafi' in her own sanctification is not fun without witnesses, even in her father's sanctification, yes Akal, and it is explained that this made it clear to her that there is no party that sanctifies a father to his daughter without witnesses to the existence of the sanctification.

And the law is explained already in Mordechai (Yavmot Remez Noah) and Zal, and not my blood to Ha Damari', the chapter that says I sanctified my daughter, etc. There is nothing, and even both admit Akal, Aish in all his words, and I do not enter into the judgment of one witness in the opinion of the most recent judges, but it is explained that Dekidoshi had a little daughter who was not in front of witnesses, with whom he had sex.

And Zal Rama (Baa'ah 17 36 66), in the name of Peski Mahara'i (1874 69) just as the father can consecrate it himself, so can he consecrate it through his emissary, or by himself , that he should say to her, Go out and receive your sanctification.
And the Rama wrote there, and it is necessary to say so to her in front of witnesses, since the messenger of Kabbalah needs witnesses, as explained above in C. 35, section 3 of the Akal, and I.S. B.N. that he did not appoint the apostles in front of witnesses of existence, since there is a side that the appointment of the apostles is from an Arab state, according to the reserves.
And it is explained in the words of the arbitrators that this is the case that is judged only in the matter of the witnesses of the mission, whether they have the right to be witnesses of sanctification in person or not, but the witnesses of the sanctification in person must be there and without these witnesses there is no sanctification.

And Shu'a Aha (C. 16:33) 1. Bezhal, a father who said that he sanctified his daughter, and after that she sanctified another and said that the first martyrs were in the invalidity of testimony from Dauriyta and it is nothing, faithful.
And in the Hajj there he added and LN precisely while speaking faithfully, and as will be explained next to section 25.
ECL.
And it is explained by DMM if we accept his words that the Rishon Kiddushi were in front of invalid witnesses, there is no doubt that the Kiddushi did not take place, although according to this side Len does not care to say that this is how he consecrated his daughter, since there were no legally valid witnesses in front of him.

And Ish in the 2nd and in the 2nd that this is a law in person, it is possible that it is a datlia in the philogta darvuta of the Rashba and the Ran whether it is faithful to say that he was among the invalids of testimony or not, but it is clear that if we accept his words that the sanctification was in front of the invalids of testimony this is explained by the words of all the There Dalit Bho Mishshab Hanach Kiddoshin Efi' that the Father admits that the Kiddoshin were because they were not before a legal witness.

In the Great Knesset [Aha 3. of the Hagat letter 21] wrote and Zal, who sanctifies the little one whose sanctity money for her father and the witnesses were impermissible for him and not for the daughter, there is no fear for his sanctified ones even for the consumption of a divorce.
The late Rabbi Aderbi Z'l Siman RLA, Rashdam Ha Ha Siman 33.
And the Rabbi HA CG added that since the father had already died at the time of receiving the testimony, there is no beit mihush in these sanctifications.
The compiler said, and it is clear that the temple is the greatest among the witnesses who are close to the father and far away from the consecrating woman whose saints are holy, but what I am satisfied with is the father who sanctifies his daughter is small and the witnesses are kosher for the father and invalid for the daughter. Kosher for her father and sanctified money for her father, there is no sanctity here, or at least no sanctity.
And he knows that from this law I discussed a written document that was signed by witnesses close to the father and distant to the illegitimate daughter, since the woman died without viable seed, it is repeated partly because of the Tolitula regulation or because of the custom or because of the condition.
And like Lakshoi, even if they are close to the father's relatives who are worthy of his heir and distant from him and the daughter, they will be disqualified for the reason that if she dies without a building, and the father is already dead, they are the heirs.
But the spring there in the late Rashdam will show that even if they are close to the Father, however, she is kosher in the Great Knesset.

And it is clear from all the condemned that witnesses are needed, and at the end of his words he discusses about witnesses who are close to the father and from this it is clear from my opinion that the father is actually the recipient of the sanctification, and I. also in the Mashardam there.
And it is explained in the second chapter that witnesses exist, and if the father comes and says that there were sanctifications, but that they were not in front of witnesses, this is a falsification according to all parties, Dalit Bho Mishsha.

 

!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

No. Sources: A woman has no way to wage war, Kiddoshin 2, 2, see Shinoch Targ, and M.M. in a war, a mitzvah goes away, deviates from the Hebrew Bible, and the interpretations, i.e. to have enough water and food, see Radbaz 16 of Kings 14, And the rest...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

No.

Sources: A woman has no way to wage war, Kiddoshin 2, 2, see Shinoch Targ, and M.M. in a war, a mitzvah goes away, deviates from the Hebrew Bible, and the interpretations, i.e. to have enough water and food, see Radbaz 16 of Kings 14, And I. in the rest of the latter in the key verse there, and in our judgments that in today's army it is known that the participation of women there is to be killed and not to go as the Hazua ruled in Halacha and the other rulers agreed with him, and it is not at all clear that men are exempt from this rule, and a woman who goes to the army should know that she assumes Her entire spiritual future is at stake.

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