The sound that there is more per square meter than excrement a) will be explained in the previous answer that we extended on the legal side regarding excrement in such a way, but in the case of foot water it is easier, since regarding excrement in such a way that it emits a slight odor and does not reach the worshiper, the main reason to be strict about this is because... .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The sound that is in a square meter is more than that

A) Yaoi' in the previous answer that we extended on the sides of the law regarding excrement in such a way, but in the matter of foot water it is easier, since regarding excrement in such a way that it emits a slight odor and does not reach the worshiper, the main reason to make it stricter is because it depends on the dispute and due to the Torah he followed the stricter, But in foot water there is more room to make it easier because foot water is prohibited from spurning and due to the scribes followed the lenient.

And I already mentioned in the previous answer that the Grisha in retrospect, from the main point of the law, it seems that the kilik as mikilim is afi' instead of a stool and that it should be discussed in the Mishnav C.C.S.D.S.S.L. The Mishnab, what is the main point of his opinion), and once again I found that the KAH (C. et SKA and ISH 19) means that when the pressure is on, the main part of the law is to ease it, and all of this should be combined with making it easier on a more difficult matter.

the worse side

b) However, in a first view, there was room to say that since there are some of the first and last greats who are strict about this, and the Mishnav went on about this and his ruling on this is not clear to begin with, in any case there is room to say that even with regard to foot water, if there is no great need, it is not appropriate to ease the matter at all You can move away or clean the baby.

And according to this side, even if there is a great need, it was not clear that there is room to ease it, because what some of the arbiters of our time blocked, and they are the Levite tribe (HT C.R.) "K" (Cleanliness and Respect in Prayer, p. 5 Sanj), to be as strict as the strict views regarding covered excrement, because none of them mentioned to Haya that there is a difference between excrement and foot water in this (and more on that below).

If the condemned is Dauriyta

c) And there was a reason to say that for another reason, a daff in a great need should not be taken lightly, since in the commentary of the preceding halachic verse 9, in the interpretation of the previous halachic verse 9, that there is a daurita prohibition in feet that are anointed, in any case according to the methods regarding excrement that the rate of the smell is epi. If it is covered, the smell does not reach it, so it must be said that they would explain the same in the matter of foot water.

And who is the old man in the 20th century, p. 16, who agreed in the name of our Rabbi Yonah that there is a law in abat that is forbidden even when it does not smell according to the Torah, since it is unique to the house of the throne, and so I will forget that a serious rabbinic for the matter of daurita is more than just a bad smell, that just a bad smell is not I say yes (see in the introduction to the interpretation of the halacha for Si. et letter 10), and in all this in fact.

And it is not clear to me that they would interpret it that way, because with regard to other bad odors, the rulings and cited in M.N.B. C. et Sk. 33 that the lesson is all that humans can do to regret that smell, whereas with regard to excrement there is no need to come to this lesson at all, as I have extended here In another answer, a model with less than that in visible excrement would be prohibited in this, because of the evidence for this, and in any case, for our matter in foot water, lest they lighten it, a model if it has a smell is prohibited by the Torah, lest we judge it like other bad smells whose prohibition by the Torah is only in a way That it is a way for humans to feel sorry for the smell, and in any case, in the NIDD where the smell does not come to him, the condemned person will be a Durbanan and not a Dauriita, and he will be in this.

Who said that the material was said at all in the water of feet

d) And again I thought that those who aggravated the stool generally worsened it with foot water. And from Mm one should reject dakshain from smelling hol drabnan mashak haka that they have a wafting smell that there is a question of Dauriita in them.

However, I looked at several rulings and in all of them I found that they mentioned what was being discussed only about excrement and not about foot water at all, and perhaps the definition of the bad smell of foot water is only as the bad smell of other things that are not excrement, which hinders only that which is a way for humans to regret the smell and so on, and there is It should be noted according to the Mishnab C. Hach that he was relieved by drinking water on his knees, but it is certain that if he comes near, he will smell what is covered, and there are also some judges who mentioned the matter of a person who has a disease that oozes and was brought up in the interpretation of the halacha.
And from M.M. there is still no clear evidence from this, Berura Dlanin, M.R. that his body was considered a cover, and the main thing is that after the cover, there is no way to smell outside the cover, which is according to the Shari, but this rejection is urgent, it is urgent to say that if it is on his flesh and covered there Kiel is more than a cover whose smell wafts off something.

And it should be noted that in the book Cleanliness and Honor in Prayer, 5 Sang, in the simplicity of his language, it means that the judges of our time have become more strict with the cover, whose smell also oozes in the matter of foot-water in his language, (and it should be noted that the Levite tribe and the OLC that he mentioned there did not speak about Mar. Lahdia but about excrement , and also the Garnak who mentioned a rumor from him there, what he brought up in his words in a comment what was specifically mentioned in his words in a comment there in the name of the Garnak is only about excrement, and I'm sorry about that).

If there is evidence from the Shu'a

e) And Yaoi' in Shua C. Paz Skag that a covering is useful for feet water, but there is no reference from there. Rai' Dehari also mentioned excrement there, and yet we have heard that dishes are aggravated by excrement without covering the place where the smell is emanating, and so also regarding the matter of Mar. Evidence should not be brought (and it should be noted that B. B. Gofia considered the mikilim in the Nidd (Sh. Barish C. wrote on the words of the Rashba and simply he) and it is therefore possible to accurately say in the above-mentioned section that a removal is a benefit as a lesson or a cover for a RL in a cover There is no need for exclusion as a lesson and KL, however in the AR C. Et SKI learned in the opinion of the KSM as strict because he mentioned a bad smell that has no significance in the matter of abatement, but there is no clear evidence from this and that he taught in this way also concludes some rulings and there are To say that there is no clear evidence from this, Dahari HaKsam Lehdia disagrees in his book 21 and 20 on the words of the Rashba that it is simple, and even from other scribes there is no clear evidence, and I did not see the A.R. in the inside except from the 28th).

Regarding Abit

F) And Yaoi' in the Shlomo's Walks, P.C.S. from which I brought in the previous answer the source for the opinion that a stool that has or had excrement in it is considered to be a grave of my husband, there is a dispute about this and the Gershzaa is stricter, in any case regarding the matter of leg water, it is lenient in not considering it Abit Afi' that there is In it there are feet and there is no covering on top of it, because of the taste in it.

And there is no evidence from Shlomo's conduct that is relevant to our case either, since the Lichsh does not intend to deodorize in such a way that he knows that he will smell if he approaches the baby with the M.R., and there is even a meaning there that it is in a way that does not smell at all, and that if he stinks, it means from his words there regarding Halacha Sek" 9. In this case, the Gershaza will consider that there is a law of abit, and it is not mentioned there if there is a definition or a lesson for a stinker for this matter, see there.

Summary of things:

I didn't summarize things at the beginning of the answer as I should in several places, because here I haven't come up with anything absolute for the time being, and maybe I'll have a chance to look at it later, but what I've come up with in the meantime is that there are several sides to relieve the water in the feet from a cushion, if there's a little smell, as long as there's no smell, the smell comes To him, and regarding the issue of abit there is a difference whether it stinks or not (for the arbitrators who are strict about the abit with a wipe in the case of faeces) if it does not stink in foot-water, according to the Law there is no din of abit.

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

If there is fecal matter with a smelly oozing smell, surely it should be aggravated from the place where the smell was contained. If it is not known whether there is fecal matter or not, it should be eased, and with a new diaper that does not contain fecal matter for sure, it should not be aggravated at all (and I wrote about this in another answer). but ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If there is fecal matter with a wafting smell, surely the DA should be aggravated from the place where the smell was contained.

And if it is not known whether there is feces or not, it should be made easier, and for example, with a new diaper that does not have feces in it, there is no need to make it worse at all (and I wrote about this in another answer).
But if there is a reason to be satisfied that there is excrement, it is appropriate to check and find out when it is possible to find out.

And if there is excrement in the diaper and there is no smell coming out of it at all, efi' not up close, it should be lightened (except where there is no tiraha at all to aggravate it, then it is better to aggravate it with a sina'a and not a parhasiya) as if the tatol is covered with an upper garment.

And if the diaper itself is exposed and there is no covering of pants over it, etc., then one should be afraid to make it worse if possible.

 

Sources: We are going into some issues with this, A. Is covered feces that has a smell to be kept away or is it enough that it stands in a place that does not smell.

And the second subject, is a dirty napkin considered as an abit for the matter to be considered as real faeces if the faeces in it do not smell at all.

And the third issue is the issue of whether excrement in its place is serious for the purpose of not being covered at all or is not more serious for this matter than any other excrement.

And here regarding the first condemned, here is the ruling: Covered excrement is allowed to read Kash against it (Och C. Os. SA and Sab), but in the way that the excrement still has a wafting smell, there is a dispute among the first ones whether it is still considered a bad smell that has a main or No, the Rashba's opinion was to make it easier on this, and Segi on what does not reach him, but the pharmacist's opinion is to make it worse, and considers a covered faeces model to be considered a bad smell that has a main effect, and should be removed from the place where the smell is contained.

And there are the latter who took it as the Rashba and the Gara and the clothing and the HiA took it as the pharmacist, and in the PMG there are contradictions in this, and also in the Bahl (introduction C. et letter 7) what he brought in the name of the way of life and also he brought all these opinions and also in O. S. G.

And the Mishnav in 3 places brought the 2nd opinions and did not decide, and it is true that in C. O. Skag there may be a bit of a meaning that tends to make it easier, and on the other hand in the above-mentioned Bahl it is possible that he expanded more on the opinion of the Oserin (but there is no clear evidence there since Dakai there On the language of the PMG Damkil in this and on this he noted the strict opinions) [And again I found in the tribe of Levi HT C. R. who seems to have understood that the opinion of the BHL is here to be strict about this], and in the BHL C. et Sabv brought in the stama that there is a phlogta in this And noted the above-mentioned Bahl's words and did not decide.

And probably because it is a fallugata in Daoriyata (the stricter ones are stricter than Daoriyata as shown in the above-mentioned Bahl) that is why the Mishnab did not make light of it and did not decide on it, but the rule is that due to the Torah he followed the stricter one.

And it should be noted that the language of the rulings in the KCM regarding covered excrement is "that it does not deserve the smell" as in the Shoah C. O. SB. .

And even for those who are strict about it, the definition of the matter of covered excrement and a wafting odor must still be discussed. Is it a matter of the 23rd that he can smell only after making an effort and getting really close to the source of the odor in such a way that there is no smell that spreads in the room at all, and the way that was allowed to read against covered excrement is only in such a way that there is no Possibility to feel the smell beyond the cover that covers it, such as a vacuum cover or a vacuum cover.

Or it should be said that the stricter model did not worsen except in such a way that at least the smell spreads a little, but the smell does not reach the person reading.

And there is reason to argue that for two reasons, it is urgent to put the issues of covered excrement only in the 23rd of complete coverage that there is no smell beyond the cover, since most covers are not made in this way, and if it is not said yes, then that is how the stricters will interpret the law of covering excrement The Brook explained in C. O. S. 6 is from some of the first, and it does not seem that they came to dispute it.

And Yaoi' in the BHL C. et Sabv who brought the above-mentioned phlogta in abbreviated language to the matter of excrement "that is covered with an additional smell", and urges to say that it is meant to describe something that can only be smelled by effort and absolute closeness.

And in spite of the fact that we do not have a decision in the aforementioned group of arbitrators, and we are stricter than that, instead of having to attach this opinion, it is possible that this opinion should be taken into account.

However, in a previous class that I had the privilege of sitting with the teacher of the Gramm Karp was asked in this way that smelling is only done up close and he replied that it is explained in the puskims to forbid it, and from his words he did not take this as a sbara, but that anyone who belongs to approach and smell enters here into the group of the puskims regarding the matter of covered excrement and a wafting smell and according to the Torah he followed the stricter

And Yaoi' in the Shu'at of the tribe of Levi HT C. R. S. K. B. that he took in doubt, if there is excrement in the napkin, it should be lightened [and we mean anything to which the smell does not reach] and there is definitely excrement, it should be moved away from the place where the smell was contained, and what the lightened in doubt is seen because SS, and it is possible that he also added to this the reasoning that I mentioned that there is a certain rate for what is considered a foul odor and not everything is considered a foul odor, and it also appears there that he believed that there is no need to fear that there is excrement, which is a doubt in the Alma dela mehzeki' isura and reiota sfka.

But he didn't make it easy on behalf of Flogta in Darbanan, since those who are aggravating fecal matter covered with a stank are making it aggravating because of Daoriyata and the like, and the more that there is defecate faeces, then he must there remove DA from the place where the odor is perceived, since the removal of DA is Daurita according to the Bahl's Mish in the introduction Rish C. Et according to the Likoti of the Ramban Barchot 22 EB.

And also the OLC (chapter 55 answer yd) the Supreme Court of Justice took the same view as Gerash and Azner that in doubt there is no need to be afraid, and it is possible that they also included the explanation I wrote above, but it is not necessary that even without this explanation there is sufficient doubt, and they also took another Judges (cf. in the book Vazet Barakah 57 p. 150 and in the book Cleanliness and Respect in Prayer, chapter 6).

And the Garnak made the doubt worse, but all the other arbiters of our time did not act in the same way as above, and for that reason the doubt should be alleviated, and it is possible to say Dethlevi in the degree of doubt and everything according to the matter, and the main point of the words of the Levite tribe is that the person wakes up in such a way that there is a reutah here and AZ Kamer Dafuzti Riota does not confirm, but in the rest of the doubt that can be ascertained easily, I do not take aim at it in general, in the doubt that it can be ascertained from a barrin.

And the Grisha (and this is the Barakah 57 p. 150) ordered according to the opinion of the Mikili that he can remove the odor until the point where the smell is present and to begin with they will clean it first, and here is what the strict ones feared at first is simple, but what he took that the main point of the law can be eased in this, aa "3) that he was confused in the Daoriyata 14A about this, and it is possible that he relied on the above-mentioned evidence that I brought from the pockets of excrement in saliva or that he learned from the Mishnav in the S. A. that I mentioned above that his main opinion was to decide to make it easier, but it is not required there at all and in the Mishnav C.C. SKPD may be of the opinion that the main point of the law is to ease this.

And in the matter of the second condemned person named Hagarshaza (Lichash P.C. letter 5) it was brought that a titol that has excrement in it is judged as a wife's grave (except that water with feet did not make it worse, and it is necessary to find out according to his method that if there is a cover of clothing on the titol Covered excrement is not serious, and on the other hand, when there is no cover, it will be forbidden if there is no smell at all, whatever there is or there was excrement in this vessel at least once, and in fact

And again I answered inside the book Halikot Shlomo and I saw that it is really explained from his words that if the baby is wearing a garment over the diaper, it is not the Meiri Hagarshaza at all.

And for the body of the opinion of the Gershaza, one should look at what Stittul has taken to have a graph definition of rai, since there is no determination here for permanent use but one-time use, and as we found in holy books that use one-time packaging for them which is not as important as ordering it for the book that will need genizah, but it is possible that here it is more serious Since there in the book the definition is what is used by the book and it will never be singled out for the purpose of the book and will never be removed from there, it is found that it is not special to the book, the agreement here regarding a graph is considered to remove any use from this tote in favor of the new use since it will never remove the excrement from there.

However, in the name of Rabbi Karlitz Harauni (which was cited in the book Cleanliness and Honor in Prayer, chapter 6, and it was also cited in his name in the book, and this is the blessing there) that there is no law of titul as law of an obituary.
And also what was discussed in the answer of the AGM, O.H., C., line, S.B.
And M.M. it is necessary to settle on the matter of whether it should be made easier since Abit's question is Dauriita a.

And the third discussion in this regards excrement in place of the mother, which is prohibited even in the covering, which the MGA (C. Pa SKI'A) made it stricter about it, but the latter disagreed with it (see Be'er Hitt SKB and other latter ones, and also the Mishnab SusK3 omitted this point of The Maga Aish), as well as in the tribe of Levi where Shat resorted to fearing the Maga (and in the paragraphs of the answers of C. Iz letter 7 I saw that he mentioned to some of the latter who believed to be the Maga but I did not have the leisure to check the originals).
And also the Shevli Helect that the Maga brought at the beginning of his words (which was also brought in the 2nd year there) simply did not believe because of this fear of the Maga that added to the words of the Shevli Heklet.

However, in the opinion of the Maga, it is necessary to discuss whether Meiri Epi' without any smell at all or with the smell of something that does not belong to him in the opinion of those who mitigate it with excrement that is not in its place, and Yaoi' in KOHH SKZ6.
And according to the Halacha, the latter have ruled that it is not to be afraid of it, and for the matter of fearing to begin with in a place where there is no tyracha, if there are some recent ones who thought as the Maga it is good to be afraid to begin with where there is no tyracha at all.

I wrote the conclusion of the things and their summary and the conclusion to the Halacha in the Rish Teshuvah.

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

It is permissible to know how many rulings there are since the purpose of the smell is to convey the bad smell and not exactly to give rise to a good smell. Sources: The report on the question of Ya'avz 1 C. Mev and Arhot Shabbat PTO note 10 in the name of the Garnak, however the Gershza in Shulchan Shlomo C. Taki in the margin of the sheet a letter...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is permissible to know how many rulings there are since the purpose of the smell is to convey the bad smell and not exactly to give rise to a good smell.
Sources: Shalat Yabetz 16 C. Mev and Arhot Shabbat PTO 15 Note 16 in the name of the Garnak, however the Gershza in Shulchan Shlomo C. Taki in the margin of the page letter 16 20 it is good not to put the soap in water because of birth Rih, and you can trust the lenient ones like the IABZ, in particular that the Gershza did not mention a prohibition in his words.
And it should also be added to this in the Rose Garden Shu'at, based on what was taken as allowing perfumed water to be put on the hands because it passes quickly due to sweat, and was also brought up in Manchii 66, 30, and 46 in the Nidd in the toilet that the smell passes quickly, Even though there was room for some in the toilet to transfer the smell from inaction, a handshake, but not the most numerous are the ones that allow it.
And in the case that he says that he enjoys the good smell, he does not forbid smelling it because he has a taste for why he preferred to do it precisely in the toilet and not somewhere else, because there is a bad smell there, and after all, his main intention is to convey the bad smell.

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

The Mishnab C. Kakah 23 held that it is permissible, and on the basis of the permission some say because the smell is external to the hand in the water stuck to the hand and does not give rise to the smell of a new thing (Ar. Ibid. Sakhh), and some have taken a different view on this, I brought in the adjacent answer, and M.M. Dilute the substance with water...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The Mishnab C. Kakah 23 concluded that it is permissible, and on the basis of the permission some say because the smell is external to the hand in the water sticking to the hand and does not give rise to a new smell (Ar. Diluting the substance with water on Shabbat is forbidden because it creates a smell in the water (Mb Takiy Kah), therefore dilute the substance with water before Shabbat.
And if the material of the scent is too thick and there is a fear of it spreading, or it creates foam, or if we need to use a sponge or cloth to use it, there is a problem of extortion, in all three of these ways the laws change and a wise question will be asked.

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

It is forbidden to use it because of the act of Shabbat, even though the garment would have been worn even without the smell.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is forbidden to use it because of the act of Shabbat, even though the garment would have been worn even without the smell. to allow.

And also if he wore the garment even without the smell and when the wearer intends not to smell (and they do not bring before other people who will smell the garment) there is room for permission.

Sources: Yeavi' in the Rama'a Rasg sah that if the food was eaten because of its warmth and heated in the prohibition, it is not forbidden because of the act of Shabbat.
and the 8th of the Mishnab where even one who enjoyed the heating is allowed retroactively because he could have eaten even without the heating, and so on Ravn Skal regarding a foreigner who slipped his shoes on Shabbat, as well as in S. Reo SKK2 that if the foreigner lit a second candle it is permissible since it was in the can use the first candle, and the difficulty in Shona Shaqz 3 that the Mashnab Shaqz Sktaz 27 for a foreigner who shines his shoes on Shabbat is forbidden to enjoy them even though God can enjoy them even without the shine, and I. M. Shik in Sh. Shik P.L. Note They stood up in the name of the Gershaza and in Menchat Shlomo from the Dovat C. 241. More on this matter.

etc. in the AGM Yod 13 Mazb that an air conditioner is not like an additional candle even if it were there even without the air conditioner, since the enjoyment of the air conditioner is a new enjoyment that is not included in the enjoyment of the actual stay, and a model should be added regarding heating, which the RMA did not allow And in the manner in which the food was completely cold, even if it says that it was eaten cold, it is not except in the manner in which it was warm to the degree of heat that would have been eaten at least because of the heat itself, that is, to the degree of heat that would have been eaten to enjoy the heating, but when it was cold it was not eaten because of the warmth, duff He would have eaten it because he eats food, but then he wouldn't have enjoyed the warmth at all, and the definition of eaten because of warmth is that it was appropriate to choose this food to eat only because of its warmth, and that in practice when eating it he feels the pleasure of warmth to the extent that he deserves to eat it because of this warmth.

And as we stated in the lesson of food that has not become completely cold, it is permissible for the Rama to return it, i.e. anything that is not eaten because of its warmth according to the Garaz, even if he says that he would have eaten it at the very least, it is not permissible for him to return it, since it has become completely cold, the definition is that he chooses to eat this food because of its warmth, Also, almost all the arbitrators agreed with the GRMP's definition regarding the air conditioner, i.e. in the composition of the rest of the members of the GRIM Morgenstern, and also the Grail ordered his meeting in Karmiel even in times of great pressure.

Also, the Garach (Book of Answers to the Garach) ordered that it is forbidden to pray in a place where there is electricity, which is not kosher on Shabbat, and we were even though he does not use the Siddur, and we were everything that the Mishnav permitted in a second candle is only in a candle that was already there so that nothing new was created, but if there was not A candle, even though he claims that he would have arrived there even without the candle, it is not permissible for him because he enjoyed a new thing that was not there without the act of Shabbat, and also for our purposes if the smell created a new thing that was not there before, it is forbidden, and even Dai' in Biahal Rish C. That he would not have done without a candle is forbidden, that is, it is possible that he would sit and come to a foreigner and light a candle there, as a proof that he does not need to light a candle at all, but in the way that he came there 111 if it was at all permissible, and he was allowed to study and eat there, and to study we would Even though one does not directly use the light of the candle, as just a form of learning on Shabbat, and also to eat, even though the pleasure is secondary, it is forbidden since there is a new pleasure here that comes because of the light that one enjoys, and the way that the Behal permitted when he came to do something that he would have done even without the candle, and not A candle was needed.

And it is also possible to say that the foreigner lit a candle in his house where he is a resident, what will he do with it, and it is reproved that he is there in any way but dafi', there it is forbidden if he does something that he would not have done because of the candle, and it should also be noted according to the words of Ha'i'a Sab Sofs s. And we took a simile taken by the Rivash (which is the source of the Bahl there) Shafi' to study or eat was forbidden, we would say to Rabuta Dava to Ashmai' Shafi' during the study it is known that the body enjoys more, and in the PZ any pleasure that comes from the candle in such a way that the pleasure is directly from the candle and the candle It is a new pleasure that is forbidden, and only in a way that does not enjoy the candle at all, such as when coming to sleep is permitted, and according to the Mishnav, although the mere delay is permitted, but whenever he comes to look at the thing by the light of the lighted candle in a way that he enjoys it, it is forbidden, and also for the matter of smelling such a garment or wearing it in such a way Let others smell and enjoy their smell.
In fact, according to our point of view, there is reason to say that if one actually wears the garment and is careful not to smell its smell (since intending to smell its smell is forbidden) it will be permissible.

And even though there is the way that the Mishnav made it easy on the matter of repairing shoes and wrote the Gershza because it is only a prohibition of durbanan, and for our purposes, regardless of the fact that the prohibition is durbanan, but a new thing is created here, and there is also no prohibition, VILA, and regardless of the fact that the smell is something that does not exist In the literal MM, the judges took the view that nothing that is not in it is forbidden in the act of Shabbat, as the PMG Ranev sided with MM 7 regarding the voice that we judged as a sight that is forbidden on Shabbat when reading a candle, and so in the 16th it is necessary to add that God is a smell that judges them again , as well as regarding what was recorded on Shabbat that all the passims took to the Esenar, see Manchai HA Raz 3, Har Tzvi HA Kfag, Arhot Shabbat 13 Kah Comment Tza in the name of the Garshaza, Khot 2 HB 22 SKA p. 'Mo letter b.
And regarding the matter if there was already a scent in the garment and you want to add it to it even though it is forbidden to do so according to the Mishnav, you will throw up about 100 mm from the definition of the Shabbat act for the Tamashnat if there was a scent in the garment that had pleasure in it before and added a scent to the garment, it will be permissible to wear it.
And it should be noted that I wrote that if the smell does not work in the garment but only gives off a bad smell, it is not a Shabbat act. It should be noted that some rulings even in the first place do not have a prohibition in it. Transferring a smell does not have a Shabbat prohibition. Yaoi' the question of Yab'tz 11 Mb and Arhot Shabbat 11 Pet'u note 10 in the name of the Garnak, however Yaoi' Shlohan Shlomo C. will throw up in the margin of the sheet letter 16, and who is also the one who permits there regarding water, perhaps it should be divided between water A garment, for example a garment that is intended to be worn and used directly, has the correction of a garment with a smell and is not only born according to the Mab Tharankh 7, and in any case for the purpose of transmitting a smell it is possible to correct it, but gradually in such a way that the smell was only removed and it would have been worn at least, it is permissible, and for the purpose of correcting a mana It should not be allowed apparently what was worn without it, p.

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

Answer is allowed, this is a useful invitation to ban Abit. Sources: Chazu'a Och Kash 36, and Z'al, laws that bring forth a graph of metal or of glass, whatever is clean and does not have a smell calling against it, of wood and of pottery, it is considered excrement even though it is now clean, invite to the graph. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Answer is allowed, this is a useful invitation to ban Abit.

Sources: Chazu'a Okh Kash 36, and Z'al, laws that come up a graph of metal or of glass, whatever is clean and does not have a smell calling against it, of wood and of pottery is considered excrement even though it is clean now, order a graph and still We will not turn on him a reader against him, as well as papers that the person who ordered the dessert calls against, they ordered a graph and we will turn on him once even though they have been cleaned and not contaminated, it is still judged as excrement and it is possible that it is nothing more than a spur, etc. etc.
And so the khachh c. paz skd that there is no useful invitation to prohibit an abit.

And Yaoi' in Shlomo's Halacha P.C.S.G also adopted the same, except that in the matter of the Halacha there at the end of the SKA regarding papers of the Beit HaKsa, he took a point of view why there is no prohibition against them and T.A. A itself as it was brought there from the soul of Avraham HA p. 9 and also regarding the Halacha there at the beginning of the aforementioned section in the name of the writings of students, and it seems that Dahann but for the welfare of Damilta added a flavor that is also not unique to the house of the throne.

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

There is room for the side that if it is a faint smell that does not bother people at all and only those who know that there are renovations know that it is from the bathroom it is not prohibited. Sources: Regarding the types of bad smell 20 the rulings (the NKJV in Rambam and the Shu'a and the HO in the 20th century) that the rate of bad smell is all...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is room for the side that if it is a faint smell that does not bother people at all and only those who know that there are renovations know that it is from the bathroom it is not prohibited.

Sources: Regarding the types of bad smell 20 the rulings (the NKJV in the Rambam and the Shu'a and the OT in the 20th century) that the rate of the bad smell is whatever people feel sorry for, but with regard to excrement it is forbidden even without a bad smell, as explained In the Mishnav BKM [see the name of the Sakchah and in the Halal DH Dinam and DH Tzuat] according to the Shasha C. Fev, but with regard to a bad smell in another room that is more irritating and lighter, and api' mentions regarding a person who is not The smell of the kilo in this is from the main point of the law instead of the need [cit. from the Bible C. et Sikih], it is possible that the kilo is when there is no smell that people are careful about, the main point of the hardware regarding excrement that is prohibited in any way (in a way that does not have an odor) is in the excrement before it in the same authority, if The excrement after it with a difference of DA from a place where the odor is not aggravated and the thing is hung with the smell, and also in another authority the thing is hung with the smell (to the Rashba Afi' before it and the Rashba Aqf comes before it), and they did not say that in the excrement the smell is not smelly but only in the way that it is with his permission or in front of him [every MD according to the rules is delia, we mean when he sees her and she is with another permission for the RAS (I. C. et Sabb) or during DA with another permission when he does not see her for the RASBA, or except for the A. In the same authority, each opinion has its own merits (but the opinion that the partition stops in the face of the smell of an epithet, the smell passes through it was not decided in the Halacha, as in the Mishnab Mishnab et Skat'7)], what is the lesson in this, and since we have seen in the matter of a bad smell another that the lesson Everyone in the BNA is sorry, but even in the matter of excrement, where they gave a lesson on the matter of smell, it should be said that this is the lesson that was given, (and we should remind Pom Orha in this that there are opinions in the Rishonim that have not ruled on the halacha that even in the reduction in the prohibited manner [which is a rabbi that has no main) is not prohibited except during the ablution, and according to Didan 20 Ba'ah, if there is no smell in the ablution, one should not stop Efi' in its ablution, and perhaps also in this it should be said that the lesson is the only way for humans to be sorry, and here it is more likely to say yes since there is no excrement here at all) , but I didn't see anything explicit about it.

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