הנה יש כאן כמה נידונים וכדלהלן: הנידון הראשון האם כדור שעשוי בזמנינו הוא מוקצה הוא לא, ובזה הארכתי בתשובה הקודמת (מק"ט 6425). והנידון השני הוא האם ראוי לאנשים גדולים לשחק בשבת בכדור. ובפוסקים [ערוך השלחן סי' ש ס"ע] הביאו דברי ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here are some discussed here and as follows:
The first issue is whether a ball made in our time is allocated, it is not, and I extended this in the previous answer (MKT 6425).

And the second issue is whether it is proper for big people to play ball on Saturday.
And in the judges [Aruch HaShalchan C.S.S.A.] the words of the Yerushalmi [Ta'anit P.D. 55] and the Midrash lamented [B.D.] that one goat was destroyed because they used to play ball with it on Shabbat, and he also wrote in Shu'at Shlomat Chaim [C. Rafah ] that it is not appropriate to do this excessively.

And the third issue is whether or not a paved area is prohibited at all, and in this the question is divided into two issues, what is the rule of playing on a paved area inside the house and what is the rule of playing on a paved area outside the house.

ובמשנ"ב סי' שח ס"ק קנח חילק בזה בין שלא ע"ג קרקע שבתוך הבית לשמחוץ לבית דברה"ר יש לחשוש שיצא מחוץ לד"א ויבוא להעבירו, ולכן התיר רק בתוך הבית ורק שלא ע"ג קרקע, דאילו ע"ג קרקע יש לחשוש שיבוא ליישר את הקרקע ויעבור על איסור חורש או בונה [תלוי היכן יישור הקרקע מתבצע, ובנידון דידן שנאמר בעיקר כלפי בית, שם החיוב בשבת על יישור קרקע הוא מדין בונה].

(ולגבי שטח מרוצף בתוך הבית אם נחשב ע"ג קרקע או לא, הנה המשנ"ב שם חילק בין ע"ג קרקע לבין שלא ע"ג קרקע, דע"ג קרקע יש בו משום אשויי גומות ושלא ע"ג קרקע אין בו משום אשוויי גומות, ולא נזכר שם להדיא דין מרוצף אם נחשב ע"ג קרקע או שלא ע"ג קרקע, אבל פוסקי זמנינו נחתו לנידון זה, ואמנם אינו מוסכם, אבל כ"ה פשטות דעת רוב פוסקי זמנינו שבתוך הבית אם הוא מרוצף אין גזירת אשויי גומות ולא חשיב כע"ג קרקע, ויעוי' שמירת שבת כהלכתה פרק טז ובמה שהביאו בביאורים ומוספים על המשנ"ב שם בשם הגריש"א והשבט הלוי).

And the fourth condemned is playing the ball in a way that may cause desecration of Shabbat, such as having partners in the game or spectators who arrive on Shabbat outside the boundaries or with a vehicle, or photographing the game and the road in such a way that it is public and leads to desecration of Shabbat.
And this is a very serious thing, (and there is a letter from one of Israel's great men against playing football on Shabbat, brought in the observance of Shabbat according to the law, chapter 16, section 9 in the note).

And even going to see Shabbat blasphemies for pleasure is forbidden [Halacha Commentary C. Sha Sabb].

And the fifth issue is whether playing at all is proper and correct and permissible for adults [from a leadership point of view] and I. 17 18 EB and O'H C. Shach St. 7 and the Shem of the Bible Shem Sknat and the Shem of the Bible C. Takih Sat, And the things are explained in their place in their sources.

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

is not assigned. Sources: In the body under discussion, whether adding nylon on a cart in such a way that the entire roof of the cart opens on Shabbat, is it permitted on Shabbat or not? "T Beer Moshe 16...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

is not assigned.

Sources: In the body under discussion, whether adding nylon on a cart in such a way that the entire roof of the cart opens on Shabbat, is it permitted on Shabbat or not? "T Beer Moshe 26 C. 16, the Garnak was brought on Arhot Shabbat 19, note Md), but some of the judges made it worse (Shebet HaLevi 13 C. Ned, so we will discuss HA C. Et Ot Kello) , and their claim that since there was no sabbath tefa roof that was made in the permit, in any case in such a way it is possible that it would be forbidden to add to such a temporary tent according to the Haza'a (and A. S.S.C. Ibid. on this claim).
And I. in the last mishna on the Mishnab C. Stu SK67 who went on to bring the sources regarding the opinions of the arbiters of our time regarding the matter of the wagon roof, and I. I. at the beginning of his words on the Mishnab there is what he brought in the whole discussion about closing the wagon roof itself on Shabbat when it was not open Tap from a day ago what is the ruling on the fact that it is not agreed upon at all to allow it and the judges extended it because of what it brought about.

And from the NID regarding the question of whether this roof is assigned or not, Psheita is not assigned, since it is not special only for making a tent in the prohibited manner, since it is permissible to spread this nylon cover if the roof of the wagon was spread on the evening of Shabbat at least a tap, and something whose work A permit is also not considered a tool whose purpose is to prohibit (as in the Mishnav in the name of the Maga).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!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 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

If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it. Sources: Ya'oi in the 12th century, C. Rasag SKKA, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take Israel out by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it.

Sources: Yeavi' in the 20th century, C. Rasg Skaka, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take out Israel by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no mission to a gentile, and it is explained to me that this problem is not wrong in the fact that the foreigner is lit, and therefore Israel is not a Torah observant And a mitzvah, since it is not exceeded by the laws of mission, can be used as a messenger to light the Shabbat candles (and 20s if there is an obligation on him), and 20s for the practices there that can Efi bless the lighting of a candle by a Gentile who fulfills a complete mitzvah in this.

And we will see further from the fact that the main obligation to light the candle is because of peace in the home, so for this matter the obligation is the same for a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot as for a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot.

Although I have seen those who have commented that there is another problem in getting out of the obligation to light a candle by someone who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot if she does not mean a mitzvah at all but something completely different, (and it is true that those who believe that by a Gentile they go out in a peshita also go out in this), and apparently this discussion also belongs For those who believe that the Darbanan mitzvos do not require an intention (and I extended this in another answer), a model for their KIL method (and there is a dispute about this in the B.I. To doubt that it is considered that he intends not to go out of duty, and in any case it is necessary to discuss whether it is appropriate to exclude others according to such a party and whether it is at all appropriate to appoint a mission in such a way, and I. C. Reto Sabv that there is no interest in an Amen after Epicurus because his intention is not for heaven, 2 and in the Bible there that if he heard the whole blessing, he answers Amen, but the matter of going out of my duty is a bit more problematic, and each one needs to check what he believes, and the AGM, O.H.B.C. That the mother has an affinity for religion and wants to be good, but does not understand and thinks that what she does is enough (and also feels satisfaction and a good feeling in what she does, because without that there is another problem. Those who believe that the mitzvah of Darbanan AA to leave without intention has a problem with leaving someone who does something that is not for the mitzvah At all), it turns out that there is no need to fear more than that, and everything depends on the matter.

And with regard to Kiddush, it is a bit more problematic to issue Yadah Kiddush on the wine and even on the portion from a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot.

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

אין לטלטל פנס בידו לצורך גופו ומקומו, אלא רק באופנים המותרים בטלטול (ניעור, ורגל) בכל אופן לפי התנאים והשיטות המתירות טלטול מוקצה באופן כזה. מקורות: לכאורה היה מותר, כיון שהוא צורך גופו ומקומו, ועל אף שמבואר בסי' רעז הזכירו ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אין לטלטל פנס בידו לצורך גופו ומקומו, אלא רק באופנים המותרים בטלטול (ניעור, ורגל) בכל אופן לפי התנאים והשיטות המתירות טלטול מוקצה באופן כזה.

Sources:
לכאורה היה מותר, כיון שהוא צורך גופו ומקומו, ועל אף שמבואר בסי' רעז הזכירו לגבי נר שאם יש שם שמן א"א שלא לקרב או לרחק, שלא יטלטל את הנר אפי' ע"י ניעור, אבל שם יש חשש של גרם כיבוי ודוקא באופן של ניעור כמבואר במשנ"ב שם סקי"ז.

אולם באמת מצינו בנר שגם בלא חשש כיבוי כלל יש איסור לטלטל נר אפי' לצורך גופו ומקומו, עי' ריש סי' רעט ס"א וס"ב.

ויש כמה טעמים לענין איסור טלטול נר, החזו"א או"ח מא סקט"ז כ' משום שאין דרכה להיטלטל, והמנחת שלמה ח"א סי' יד והאג"מ או"ח ח"ג סי' נ כ' משום שאינה כלי, ועי' ארחות שבת ח"ג בירורי הלכה סי' ב' אות כא וח"ב פי"ט הערה רמא.

ודנו פוסקי זמנינו בהגדרה של מכשירי חשמל בזמנינו מה הגדרתם ואם הגדרתם כמו נר הדולק או לא, וכן דנו לענין פנס, ועי' באג"מ או"ח ח"ה סי' כב אות לו שכ' לחדש שדין פנס כדין נר משום שהוא דומה לנר, ובחוט שני [ח"ג פמ"ב סק"א אות ג] החמיר יותר ודעתו שכל מכשירי חשמל דינם כשלהבת, וכן חשש לסברא כעי"ז בשבט הלוי ח"ח סי' קסז שבעודו דולק לא יטלטלנו אפי' לצורך גופו ומקומו אלא רק ברגלו, אבל במנחת שלמה שם נקט שאין לחלק בין פנס לבין שאר מכשירי חשמל, אולם למעשה נקט שאין לטלטל פנס משום עובדין דחול (מאורי אש פ"ב עמ' 78 ד"ה אמנם זאת, ובמהדו"ח פ"ב ענף ג' עמ' קיד).

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

הסכמת רוב הפוסקים שמותר. מקורות: יעוי' בשו"ע סי' שב ס"ז שהקיל בלכלוך הדבוק בבגדו, ואמנם כ' שם הפוסקים טעמים בזה, אולם בחזו"א סי' מז סקט"ו כ' שלכלוך שבטל להיתר אינו מוקצה, ושכן מבואר בשבת קמב ע"ב ותוס' ורמב"ן ורשב"א, וכן ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

הסכמת רוב הפוסקים שמותר.

מקורות: יעוי' בשו"ע סי' שב ס"ז שהקיל בלכלוך הדבוק בבגדו, ואמנם כ' שם הפוסקים טעמים בזה, אולם בחזו"א סי' מז סקט"ו כ' שלכלוך שבטל להיתר אינו מוקצה, ושכן מבואר בשבת קמב ע"ב ותוס' ורמב"ן ורשב"א, וכן הורה הגרשז"א שזה טעם ההיתר בהדחת כלים בשבת המבואר במשנה להתיר משום שהפסולת בטלה לכלי, וכעי"ז מבואר הטעם על כיבוד הבית בחזו"א שם סקכ"א, וכן לגבי חוטים ונוצות על הבגד התיר בשביתת השבת בורר בב"ר סקכ"ד מטעם זה וכן התיר במנח"י ח"ה סי' לח דלא כהגר"ז סי' שב ס"ג, ובארחות שבת ח"ב עמ' צז ואילך (שעיקרי הדברים כאן מיוסדין על הכתוב שם) הקשה ע"ז כמה קושיות, ומה שהקשה מהרא"ש לענין ההיתר על פרעוש על בשרו משום שמצער אותו פשיטא דלק"מ דגם החזו"א והאחרונים לא מיירו בבריה בפני עצמה שהיא בעל חיים דבע"ח חשיבא ולא בטלה כדאמרי' בכמה דוכתי לענין תערובת, וגם לא שייך ביטול כלל דמאיזה טעם נחשיבה כבטל לבגד, אם משום שעומדת שם לפי שעה הרי בכל שעה מהלך וזז משם ולמה ייבטל, ומה שהקשה שם מהרמב"ן שכ' טעמים אחרים בהיתר כיבוד הבית, הן נכון שהחזו"א כ' טעם ההיתר מחמת שהמוקצה בטל, אבל יש ליישב בקל שהרמב"ן מיירי באופן אחר ממה שמיירי החזו"א, דהרמב"ן בעי להתיר אפי' לא רק בלכלוכים כל דהו אלא אפי' בדברים גדולים שאינם מתבטלים או בכמות לכלוך שלא שייך לומר בזה ביטול, ובאופן שאינו בהגדרה הפשוטה של גרף של רעי.
(ולגוף הקו' למה תירצו הראשונים תירוצים אחרים במקום לומר שהלכלוך בטל לבגד, לפעמים אמרי' דחד מתרי תלת טעמי נקט, וכן אי' בירושלמי עשירין היו בטעמים).

ומה שהביא שם מהמשנ"ב יתכן שאה"נ שהמשנ"ב חולק על החזו"א בזה, ואולי יתרץ הגמ' דחשיבות של יין הוא דין מיוחד שהאבן בטל אליו ולא כל דבר מוקצה מחמת גופו בטל להיתר, או דיש לומר שבאופנים המובאים במשנ"ב שם יש ממשות משמעותית לגבי עשבים (אם כי בגמ' שבת שם משמע שגם דבר שהוא גדול קצת יכול להתבטל), או חשיבות לגבי שעוה שלכן אינו בטל , או שמכיון שהשעוה מעכבת הקריאה דמי לאופן המבואר בגמ' שבת שם לאסור עי"ש ודוק, ויל"ע.

ולמעשה מאחר שהרבה אחרונים מקילין והוא דרבנן וכך פשטות הסוגי' בשבת שם וכך משמע שהורו פוסקי זמנינו, א"כ הסומך להקל לא הפסיד, אע"פ שלכאורה דעת המשנ"ב והגר"ז ושלחן עצי שיטים להחמיר בזה, ומ"מ אין פשוט להקל אלא בדברים שברור שהם בטלים.

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

There are several issues discussed here: a) Is a night garment required to wear a tzitzit if worn during the day - on this there is a disagreement between Rambam and the Rabbi, and the ruling of the Halacha is to be afraid of the Rambam's opinion that it is obligatory not to wear a night garment during the day without a tzitzit 18 S. K. B.] 2) ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There are several discussed here:
A) Does a night garment require a tzitzit if worn during the day - in this there is a dispute between the Rambam and the Rabbis, and the ruling of the Halacha is to fear the Rambam's opinion that it is obligatory not to wear a night garment during the day without a tzitzit [Mishnav C. 18 SKB ].

2) Is a garment that can only be worn by covering up at night considered a garment - there is a dispute as to whether it is considered a garment or not, and the Mishnav Sakhh ruled that one round horn should be made to exempt a tzitzit, but the ruling is only for a garment made of wool, but for a garment made of other Kinds (which to many arbitrators is only a matter of encouragement) the Mishnab took the view that it should not be made more strict, and the Chazua Och C. 3 SQL 20 that the mikyl has something to rely on [even in woolen clothing, p. 2 Name SIA, and as to whether it is a garment that is only used to cover the sleep of Yom Yayo', below is what I will write about it].

C) The third issue is that it should not be said that such a garment that is not intended for wearing is not a garment, but if it changes its use in a one-time fashion, it should be discussed whether it is then considered a garment, and then it will be obligated as we require the tzisit of a garment day and night (which the Rambam is afraid to say) ), on the other hand it should be said that there regarding a garment for a night on the day of Rambam's opinion that it does not change at all the time of the main wearing of the garment but the time of actual wearing of the garment.

And Yaoi' in the Chazu'a there at the end of the Skala that he wrote to divide between important ephemeral and lowly ephemeral times, (that the Shu'a's method regarding night sheets that are worn during the day is lowly ephemeral and not blood for a dishcloth that sometimes the big one wraps himself in is an important ephemeral), and because of this he explained why a sheet which is mainly for the night and only used at the end of his sleep on an exempt day [for opinions that a nightgown is also exempt during the day] since the use that is used during the day is low temporary use, and in our case there is no such official and designated use (using a blanket as a game and wrapping oneself in it) that is considered low temporary use , and yet according to the opinions that a garment of mere covering, such as a bed sheet, is not considered God's garment, even when once he puts it on his body through clothing as a game, it will be considered lowly temporary.

And so according to the Chazu'a the one who makes light of the sheets has someone to trust here as well, the one who makes the light has someone to trust (since the definition of this type of use according to the above-mentioned Hazu'a is as low moments, therefore in fact it is no more serious than a night sheet that lasts for the day, And since there are two conjunctions there, one conjunction which is essentially a night garment and a second conjunction which is not a way of clothing, MM here GAC is not a way of clothing according to the calculation explained and GAC is not a day garment just like there, and there will be more expansion of words next to this in this), and according to the Mishnav in other species there will be an exemption, and in the garment of the wool of the advice one who can get rid of it if he cannot make a round horn is to abandon the blanket (cf. in the answer to MKT 4843 which begins a man who fears, etc. with the letter 5).

You have completed and clarified some things

And there was a reason to argue and say that what is considered bad use of a blanket according to the Hazu'a is only because the beginning of the actual use is at night, but here that the beginning of use is during the day, there will be no exemption for bad use and a tzisit will be required, but according to this it will be found that if one occasionally uses a blanket for sleeping during the day it will be prohibited, And apparently, it is an unusual innovation to the law, to say according to the opinions that it is permissible only whenever the use begins at night; VIL'A (VIL' below is the conclusion of the matter in this regard).

And perhaps the intention of the Chazoa should be clarified in a different way, by using a lowly usage, its intention is to include the fact that there is no finished form of wearing, although the Chazoa aims at dividing this into the opinions presented in MA and MAB that consider such a covering to be wearable, MM admits that it is considered a lowly use for the purpose of not For this reason, it will be considered a day garment, that is, in addition to what is mainly for night and in addition that has no important use during the day, and according to this reason, if worn on the way from clothing (which also belongs to the way of clothing as a blanket, a person wraps himself in a kilah and a sackcloth and goes out to the Rhar, for the purpose of spending Shabbat, and the latter We discussed the matter of a towel).
And if that is the intention of the Chazoa, there will be no permit regarding Didan.

However, I really looked again at the language of the hazu'a and it is explained to him that the consideration of low use during the day is because the meaning worn during the day continues from the night's sleep, and therefore it has no importance for daytime clothing, as long as the wearing is only for the sake of the night (and a garment that is made to cover a day's sleep in a random, official way, it became worse in the prediction "A to himself as an expert on the laws and practices), and yet it must be said that he is still not obligated to wear a tzitzit if worn once a day, since the definition of this garment is for night time, he is again not obligated to tzitzit on this garment at all even during the day.

However, after studying the words of the Chazua, all these words of the Chazua refer only to the beginning of the sentence that this garment is exempt from the Rash because it is a night garment, but they do not refer at all to what the Rambam's opinion is about such a garment.

And it would be an addition to the Hazu'a opinion to say that according to the party there is no way to wear such a garment that is only made for covering (that is, the opinion that the Mishnav ruled similar to in the case of other species), therefore anyone who does not have an official temporary use of such a garment will not be required to wear a tzisit.

And really, one more thing should be added. What the hazu'a brought evidence is from what DKIL in terms of clothing, in their opinion, a large one goes to the market, and there it is not enough that they were worn at random but that they were worn at random in the market, and yet it does not belong at all in the matter of his discussion regarding the one who wraps himself in a blanket in the game, and therefore If there was an apparently official random device, he still wouldn't have to wear a tassel.

Regarding the ruling on clothing as a cover for sleeping, the Mishnab's ruling to ease other species and the Chazu's ruling that the main rule should be eased, but this is only in conjunction with the fact that it is a night garment and the beginning of use at night (the Chazu's ACP reminded Lahdia of this opinion in the previous section), But a covering garment that is used for daytime sleep has less room to make light of it, since there are no such additions here, and as for the matter of a blanket that does not belong at all to the use of the garment, it is dealt with differently and as will be explained.

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

In the addendum Klaiim PA 59 I. Sowing on the aqueduct does not contain any Klaiim, and it was also brought in the way of faith Rish Halachot Klaiim, VE Yerushalmi Klaiim SPA, and the arbitrators of our time discussed whether this is also a normal way of sowing by actual water or No. (and also...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the addendum Klaiim PA 59 I. Sowing on the aqueduct does not contain any Klaiim, and it was also brought in the way of faith Rish Halachot Klaiim, VE Yerushalmi Klaiim SPA, and the arbitrators of our time discussed whether this is also a normal way of sowing by actual water or No.
(And also by Rash Klaiim PG MB and Dok).

And I. Shuat Har Tzvi HB C. not the letter of God regarding water crops in our time called hydroponics, which for some reason prohibits hybrids.

And it must be noted that according to the division of things there in the Tosefta as well as in Yerushalmi there it means that the things mentioned there for exemption are things that cannot grow through them and I do not wish to dispel the thing that such is the way of its growth.

And also YLA in all of this, whether the exemption or the permit or only an exemption from Dauriata.
It should be noted a model for the case of a covered house 1 in Yerushalmi PA 12 for the case of a tax-exempt property that is not a match at all, and even in this case, cages instead of a cover are not permitted.

And it should also be noted in the Addendum of the Hebrews that there is a person who sows something that does not grow, an exemption, and a model there, it is possible that it is only an exemption and not a permit, and the designation is something that does not take place, and does not place a seed in the pot of alma [such as the toman for turnips and radishes, etc.] that it is not sowing at all, but There is a sowing that is caught and becomes sick, only that it does not take place, and in this, since it does not take place, there is an exemption and a forbidden tax.
(And what I wrote in another answer regarding the matter of the Lord Shabbat in 23).

But there are those who disagree about the GRCP, and some have argued that it may be a definition in the laws of kalaim that a doka in the land is required because of a dictation of Shadach (cf. Zebhai Ephraim zabhaim Tsad 2b), and cf. what was cited in the Talmudic encyclopedia a value of klaim [Part 1 p. Taklat].

To sum things up, there is a Mimra that sows by water is exempt from the hybrids, but there is no clear decision as to whether this is also about ongoing sowing and whether it is also a permit to begin with.

And I will mention some of the books of our time that brought opinions of those ruling in this regard to the matter of Shemita, the report of Nehfa in the money Yod C. E, the report of Sde Ha'aretz 13 Yod C. 20, the report of Maharil Diskin KA C 27 Letter 1, Or Lezion (Saviyat) C. I. Letter 7, Har Tzvi Zeraim HCV C. No, Sde Shmuel Sheviyat C. 12, Rosvat Hasbit Yod 13 p. Kid (regarding hybrids), and I. in the afternoon at the end of what was brought there in the name of the hazu'a.

I don't have a decision on this, although I have a bit of a tendency on this from a freezer. It is possible that the tosefta is exempt, but it is prohibited and it is like a pot that is not named, mm I do not have a decision on this, and maybe we will look at things more later.

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

לגבי אם יש חיוב להשלים, אם לא אמר כלל פסוד"ז קודם התפילה כ' השו"ע להשלים אחר התפילה בלא ברכותיה, (ועי' בפנים התשובה אם נאמר בתורת חיוב או הנהגה שיש לעשותה). ולגבי אם אמר פסוד"ז לפני התפילה אם מחוייב להשלים אחר ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

לגבי אם יש חיוב להשלים, אם לא אמר כלל פסוד"ז קודם התפילה כ' השו"ע להשלים אחר התפילה בלא ברכותיה, (ועי' בפנים התשובה אם נאמר בתורת חיוב או הנהגה שיש לעשותה).

ולגבי אם אמר פסוד"ז לפני התפילה אם מחוייב להשלים אחר התפילה יש בזה דעות בין הפוסקים, ונראה שהדעה העיקרית בפוסקים שאין זה חיוב אבל דבר טוב.

ולגבי עד מתי אפשר להשלים, בדיעבד נראה שאפשר להשלים גם אחר זמן תפילה ואפי' לאחר חצות היום.

Sources:
לעצם הנידון אם צריך להשלים, יש לציין דבמקור הדברים בטור סי' נב הובאו ב' אופנים, האחד הוא בשם הגאונים שאמר הפסוד"ז בדילוג ואז יצא ידי עיקר חובת פסוקי דזמרא בדיעבד ואינו חוזר ואומרם אחר התפילה, והב' בשם הרר"י הוא באופן שלא היה לו שום פנאי לומר פסוד"ז קודם התפילה אף לא בדילוג, שאז חוזר ואומר הפסוד"ז לאחר התפילה.

(ובאופן הא' הנ"ל הובאו ב' חילוקי דינים בזה בשם ב' דעות ולא נאריך בזה כאן).

ואמנם הגם שהטור הביא הדברים בשם כמה דעות, אבל מפשטות לשונו שהדעות משלימות זו את זו, דהדעה הראשונה מיירי באופן שיש קצת שהות והדעה שאחר זה מיירי שאין שהות כ"כ, והדעה שאחר זה מיירי שאין שהות כלל.

וכן נקט האגור [סי' צה] בדעות המובאים בטור שאינן חולקות זו על זו, אלא שאם הספיק לומר קצת פסוד"ז אינו חוזר ואומרן אחר התפילה אבל אם לא הספיק כלל לאומרן קודם התפילה אומרן אחר התפילה.

אבל הב"י חלק על ביאורו של האגור, וסובר שהדעה הראשונה בטור (דמיירי באופן שאמר קצת מהפסוד"ז קודם התפילה עם הברכות) סוברת שאם לא אמר הפסוד"ז קודם התפילה הפסיד לגמרי הפסוד"ז עם הברכות אחר התפילה.

וכן הב"ח ביאר [ואינו מפורש להדיא בטור] דהדעה הראשונה בטור סוברת דאפי' לא אמר כלל פסוד"ז קודם התפילה לא ישלים אחר התפילה כיון דלא תקנו כלל פסוד"ז לאחר התפילה, והדעה האחרונה חולקת על זה.

(וא"ה מ"מ יתכן שהטור עצמו להלכה סבר כביאורו של האגור לפסוק ככל השיטות יחד, (אף אם הדעות חולקות זו על זו), ולכך התהלה לדוד להלן נקט שהרא"ש סובר כהרר"י וקיצרתי ודוק).

ולפי ביאור הב"י והב"ח בטור יתכן שלפי הדעה האחרונה אף אם אמר בדילוג יצטרך להשלים לאחר התפילה.
(אף שלא פסקו הב"י והב"ח כהדעה האחרונה ועי' להלן).

(והב"י רק הזכיר בדבריו בשם הראשונים דגם להדעה הראשונה יכול להשלים הזמירות בלא הברכות לאחר התפילה ושהוא דבר טוב, ושלענין אם יכול לברך הברכות אחר התפילה נקט כהדעה הראשונה [לפי פירושו] שאי אפשר בכל גווני, אבל לא נחית לנידון מה הדין לפי הדעה האחרונה באופן שאמר רק חלק מהזמירות לפני התפילה עם הברכות אם צריך להשלים לאחר התפילה.

אולם מל' הטור משמע שהדעה האחרונה רק באה להוסיף מה הדין באופן שאין שהות כלל [שבזה הדעה הראשונה לא מיירי להדיא גם אם נימא שהי' להם דעה בזה] אבל מה שמפורש בדעה הראשונה שאם אמר בדילוג הפסוד"ז אינו מחוייב להשלים אחר התפילה לא משמע שבאו לחלוק בזה, ומ"מ יש לדחות דהטור לא הביא אלא מה שכ' הדעה השניה בהדיא בדבריהם.

והנה זה פשיטא שלפי הדעה הראשונה א"צ להשלים אחר התפילה וזה פשיטא שלענין האיסור לומר הברכות אחר התפילה [לפי פירוש הב"י בדעה הראשונה שבטור] פסק הב"י כהדעה הראשונה בטור וכן כ' בשו"ע, אבל לענין אם צריך להשלים [על הצד שלפי הדעה השניה צריך להשלים אחר התפילה] לא פסק להדיא כאחד מן השיטות אבל הב"י הביא ב' טעמים למה לפסוק כדעה הראשונה, הא' משום שספק ברכות להקל, והב' שקבלתן של גאונים תורה היא, והטעם השני של הב"י שייך גם לנידון הזה [אם יש חיוב להשלים הברכות], וממילא לכאורה דעת הב"י להכריע ג"כ כהב"ח שאין חיוב להשלים, אלא שבב"ח משמע שלא ישלים ובב"י נקט [בהדעה הראשונה] שאינו חיוב וטוב להשלים).

ויעוי' עוד בנידון זה בעה"ש [שמקיל] ובחי"א ובארחות יושר [שנקטו להשלים] ובמחנה ישראל להח"ח ובמה שציינו בשם המשנ"ב בהל' שבת (עי' בביאורים ומוספים מה שהביאו בכל זה).

ולמעשה נראה שהדעה העיקרית בפוסקים שאינו חיוב להשלים שלכאורה לא נמצאה שום דעה מפורשת בראשונים שמחוייב להשלים באופן שאמר בדילוג ואדרבה נמצא להדיא בכמה ראשונים שא"צ להשלים והם הדעות שכוותייהו נקטינן בשאר דבריהם כמו שנתבאר [בפרט שפסוד"ז אינו אפי' תקנה דרבנן בתורת חובה כמבואר בגמ' שבת קיח ע"ב וברמב"ם הל' תפילה אלא דקבלוהו עלייהו כחובה, ואולם עי' במסכת סופרים] ושטוב להשלים.

וגם בשו"ע לא הזכיר השלמה אלא לענין מי שלא אמר כלל פסוד"ז קודם התפילה ולא לחינם הזכיר כן על הדרך שנתבאר.

(ויש לציין דבל' הגר"א סק"ז וסק"ח משמע שמה שפסק השו"ע לומר באופן זה אחר התפילה הוא ג"כ אינו חיוב מעיקר הדין כמו ברכות השחר שהזכיר הרמ"א אחר כך עי' בלשונו שם [ויתכן לפרש בדבריו שהוא לרווחא דמילתא לחשוש לשאר דעות], ויש אולי קצת דיוק כן מל' המשנ"ב סק"ט בשם הגר"א ודוק, ואמנם באשל אברהם [שעל הדף] על השו"ע שם אפשר שר"ל שם שהשלמה זו של פסוד"ז אחר התפילה באופן המבואר בשו"ע שם [דהיינו אם לא אמר כלל הפסוד"ז קודם התפילה] הוא כעין הנהגה שאינו חיוב מצד הדין שקבלוהו עלייהו).

ולענין זמן ההשלמה עי' בתהלה לדוד על השו"ע [יצא לאור מחדש בהוצאת עוז והדר] שכתב [סי' נב סק"ג] וז"ל, מש"כ המחבר ואח"כ יקרא כל פסד"ז בלא ברכה לכאורה נראה דהיינו דוקא בזמן תפילה אבל אם עבר זמן תפלה שוב אין אומרים אבל רש"י ז"ל כתב בברכות דף י"א ע"ב שברכת ישתבח אומרים אותה קודם זמן ק"ש אם ירצו ע"כ ולפ"ז יש להסתפק אפשר דזמנם כל היום ולדעת הרר"י והרא"ש ז"ל יאמרם כל היום בברכה ואיך שיהי' צ"ע למה לא יאמרם במנחה דנהי דבכל מנחה אין מסדרין שבחו של מקום בברכה לפני' ולאחרי' היינו שכבר סדר בשחרית אבל זה שלא סדר בשחרית למה לא יסדר במנחה וצ"ל דלא נתקנו אלא בשחרית וצ"ע עכ"ל.

וביאור דבריו דאחר שנתבאר ברש"י שזמן פסוד"ז אינו שייך לזמן התפילה, א"כ הנה להדעות שיכול לומר בדיעבד פסוד"ז עם הברכות אחר התפילה [היינו הדעות שהביא אחר כך] הרי לכאורה יכול לומר כל היום, אבל הרי אפי' להדעות שאי אפשר לומר פסד"ז עם הברכות אחר התפילה [וז"ש ואיך שיהיה וכו'], (ושמחמתם פסק השו"ע שאם לא אמר כלל הפסוד"ז יאמר הפסוד"ז אחר התפילה בלא הברכות), הרי לפי המבואר בראשונים והובאו במפרשי הטור דהטעם שלא ישלים עם הברכות אחר כך משום שתקנוהו רק קודם התפילה דלעולם יסדיר אדם שבחו של מקום ואחר כך יתפלל [ברכות לב ע"א] וממילא הקשה דא"כ יהיה שייך להשלים קודם מנחה שבזה מקיים הסדרת שבחו של מקום קודם התפילה, ואז יוכל לברך, ודחה הראיה דמ"מ התקנה היתה על שחרית, וכיון שלא תקנו על מנחה וה"ל כמברך ברכה מלבו אם יאמר הפסוד"ז עם הברכות במנחה.

וא"כ עיקר דבריו הם ב' נידונים, הא' האם אפשר להשלים את הפסוד"ז כל היום, ובזה נקט שסתימת השו"ע שרק בזמן תפילה אפשר ושלכאורה בדברי רש"י מבואר שאינו שייך לזמן תפילה.

והנידון השני בדבריו הוא, לדידן שאין השלמה של פסוד"ז בברכות, מה הדין אם אפשר להשלים קודם מנחה הפסוד"ז בברכותיהם, ובזה משמע שחכך בזה שלא ישלימו בברכותיה באופן זה.

ולמעשה לגבי הנידון אם יכול לומר פסוד"ז אחר זמן תפילה ואחר חצות נראה לאור דברי התהלה לדוד הנ"ל דמאחר ומהשו"ע אין ראיה ברורה מה דעתו בזה ומאידך הראי' מרש"י היא לכאורה ראיה אלימתא מאוד, לכך יוכל להשלים בדיעבד (אם לא הספיק להשלים) גם אחרי זמן תפילה ואפי' אחר חצות, ובפרט דלדידן אינו ברור שמדינא מחוייב להשלים הפסוד"ז כמו שנתבאר ואפי' אם לא אמר הפסד"ז כלל קודם התפילה שכ' השו"ע להשלים אינו ברור שהוא אמור בתורת חיוב גמור כשאר חיובים כמשנ"ת.

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

I entered a reputable store that, due to the savings in the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc.,...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I went into a respectable store that, due to the savings on the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc., etc. It is possible for a dunam to have a right that according to what they say they do everything legally and do not need an overseer at all.

But still since it was recently published about serious obstacles that happened in places where there is no kosher supervisor, therefore it would be better if there was public awareness of how to treat a store where all products are under the supervision of the Kosher.

It should be noted that sometimes it is indeed impossible to point out a prohibition that is clear on the part of Gadri Halacha to buy there, if the seller observes the Torah and mitzvot (and the Shu'a and Rama'a find that the main point of the law is relaxed even in matters more than that, cf. C. Kitt SB and SG and 37, and EE in the words of the Shu'a and Rama concerning the law of food that is written kosher, as well as the law of letters in Hebrew where no Gentiles know how to write), but in reality there are many obstacles in such places, especially today that the food industry is industrial and includes the use of many workers and supplies .

And so as long as you don't know the seller personally, he is God-fearing and knows Halacha and knows what he is doing, what can certainly be said is that it is better to buy in a supervised place.
(And we noted in the Rama that things that were held to be problematic do not rely on the holdings, and also in the Rama in Baha 3:17 72, and Yaoi' of the Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of the slaughters and brought the 22).

Below I will mention some of the obstacles that can be found in such a place:
A.
The discharge falls into the pulp
When you prepare a pulp, you often oblige yourself to secrete challah without knowing it, and besides that, for example, sometimes you secrete challah from a pulp because of doubt, and after that another doubt is created, such as when you join a basket between two pulps from which each of them was secreted separately when it was in a doubtful proportion, and now there is a certain proportion between the two, And from the judgment one has to set aside challah again, and it is possible to fail in this due to lack of knowledge.

B.
Unrolling and immersing the dishes
There is no Bedaz inspection on the dishes, even in stores that write that all the products are under the inspection of the Bedz, and not on the way in which they are immersed and disgusted, and as I mentioned in one of the adjacent answers, there is a halachic problem buying from a seller who does not adhere to legal immersion and immersion (even if he is not his son).

And of course there are sometimes also dishes that are destroyed to such an extent that they prohibit cooking in them, and those who deal with the kitchen and cooking without knowing the Halacha may fail.

third.
There are products that do not require kosher
There are products that are practiced that do not require kosher, such as sugar and coffee, and it is possible that you at home are also careful about these products to buy only kosher, but it is possible that the seller is not careful about this, that is, it is not impossible that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, this statement does not mean products that do not need kosher (in the opinion of the seller), as long as it is not stated otherwise (and maybe even if we ask the seller he will answer that "everyone does not follow this").

d.
Worm inspection
There are types of foods that claim to test for worms as explained in the Shoah in the Book of Worms, and even on behalf of kosher it says to test, and it is a problem to use products that have not been legally tested, even if the products are under the supervision of the Bedz.

God.
Fish inspection
On behalf of the BDS (up to the last time I was updated), fish sold with skin are required to be tested at home, to check that they have scales, so even if all the products are under the supervision of the BDS, it still does not mean that the seller has done the inspection legally.

Also, on behalf of the Bedz Rabbi Landa, the official instruction on the salmon fish is that the skin is problematic and requires care at home, so even if the seller bought all the products with good care, it is still impossible to know if he took care of the skin properly.

and.
Blood clotting in poultry
The problem of blood clotting in poultry is still not eliminated by kosher.
Although I don't know even when there is kosher on the restaurant if the supervisor oversees it.

And the same with regard to the condemnation of eggs that do not have kosher marks (kad and had) those who are careful about this at home and buy ready-made challah at the store, obviously the supervisor of the mafia is not careful about this, but in such a case where there are some doubts here it is easier (i.e. by way of answer) What brought in this, and there are also instructions from our time arbitrators in this).

G.
Akaum cooking
Even if all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, it still does not guarantee that there is no illegal cooking, and as we know, a person forgot that hot seed and Ishmael is cheaper, and in any case it is found in factories that use them as laborers, when significant manpower is needed, and of course in bakeries and restaurants they are observed working, and the big problem It's not the regular use of them, dela mashui inish nafshaya sharia, but the bigger problem is all kinds of voices that are not agreed that the seller can make it easier for himself (or make it easier for the attribution of the workers in the places that the arbitrators have taken that they don't have enough attribution) and when there is a kosher who oversees it, he is more responsible.

H.
Annihilated cooking
In this regard, not all of the koshers are careful not to let the mashomed cook, but in places where "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" there is certainly no guarantee that they are careful about this.

ninth.
Meat in milk
Even in places that promise that "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" which can legally oblige them if they are found to be liars, but they do not promise not to cook meat products with milk, or meat products in milk vessels and vice versa (and that there is no promise that they do not cook fish with meat or fish with milk for those who are strict about it).

Likewise, there are also laws which products are allowed to be placed next to other products, and there are laws of cancellation and there is no cancellation, and the taste is not void, and all these things are not sufficient for those who are not knowledgeable in Halacha.

And likewise, sometimes there is a meat/dairy din for the food, and the seller will not necessarily indicate this because in his opinion the food is not considered meat, or he does not see the need to indicate this, and when there is no supervision I went to the store it is impossible to know about all of this.

J.
A touch of wine
Even in places where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there can be a person who does not observe Shabbat who touches the wine, and there are ways that the wine is prohibited even when it is mixed in a stew as explained in the Shoah, and in the case of the Shabbos if he touched the wine before entering the stew, and a Shabbat person who touches the wine is very problematic.

11
seventh
Even in a store where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there is still no guarantee that they do not sell products that have the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that those who are strict about certain things such as foreign crops or northern and southern prairies or cultivated on the seventh (and harvested on the eighth) should not expect to have information about this, burden In most cases, in kosher, things are monitored and the necessary information is provided to the buyer of the product.

12.
negligence at work
Even if the seller's intention is pure that all the products will be under the supervision of the Bedz, if he brings in chefs (cooks) who are not irash and gives them the products to prepare ready-made dishes from it, if there is no supervision and supervision as usual, there is still no guarantee that they will not introduce other substances, and they touch the matter It turns out tastier so that they will continue to use their service, and even if according to Halacha it is sometimes allowed because he is a craftsman or because he is in the House of Israel, and there are many differences of opinion about this (Vai'oi' in S. Kich s. ), mm It is certainly better to buy from a place where there is supervision, since it is known that there are obstacles in this (as the aforementioned RMA said).

13.
Sending meat and the like without a seal
There are foods that must not be sent with goy or moshmood without a seal or two seals such as meat, eg in S. Kih, and there are ways that it is prohibited even in retrospect, and it is possible to fail in this even if all the principle products come from the supervision of the Bedz.

Hand.
Suspect to eat normal kosher
Even if the seller is obvious to the eye as a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot, mm if he also eats things that are rabbinically kosher known as regular kosher, or other koshers that according to Din AA can be trusted, and when he arrives at the place and is served dishes with these koshers, he eats them, And these koshers are held as kosher by him without fear, in any case his presumption of kosher must be discussed with the Didan, i.e. even if he says that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, since in his opinion everything is considered kosher Galat, in any case it is not so simple that he has a presumption of kosher on it (I.C. Kih Sof Sach and I' further C. Kit Sach, and IA in the words of the Shu'a regarding the fact that there is no loyalty in the rapists about their wine since they themselves are not careful, and it should be discussed whether it is appropriate to learn from this), in particular if it is a restaurant that naturally It involves many challenges and requires all kinds of materials that can sometimes be easily obtained from all kinds of places, and there are many permit instructions that a person can order for himself when he knows that without this permit order he will not be able to bring food tomorrow to his regular and non-regular customers, and everything that is needed is not always readily available in good kosher.

Tu.

Relying on the loyalty of women and minors in Halacha
It is necessary to add a dish of problems in the trust of a woman and a minor in certain cases as explained in the Shoah and the Rama'a SS C. 133 SG and SD and it is necessary to note that all this is strictly adhered to.
By the way, I quoted the Rama's words, where it should be noted a model of loyalty of people who do not follow the grammar of the Halacha. As for the grammar of the Halacha, it is discussed on its own and Ish.

16
Unseasoned chicken or meat
Even if you buy poultry and meat under the supervision of the Badz, but if you buy them from the Badz when they have not yet been salted and roasted and the seller prepares them himself (which can be profitable for those who buy in quantities), there can be problems with salting that prohibit the meat even in retrospect, such as if stock drips on the meat in ways Some, either blood dripped from the outside during roasting, or it stayed for a few days without salting, and there are many legal details in this.

17.
Leaven on which Passover passed
It is possible that a product is perfectly kosher in the Badatz kosher, but after Pesach it will be forbidden in pleasure, if they did not sell chametz, and the seller did not commit except that the products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and if he is not a Yarash (and you do not know him) lest he think that A. to come at him with claims, also if you are careful not to trust all the sales that are practiced due to various concerns, and even if the seller is an expert, how can you trust him as long as you don't know that he is meticulous, (and this also does not state the law of oxygen of transgressors, etc., since this is a complete permit for him), although for this reason one can withdraw from the hodai, and if it is a dish that only provides a mixture of chametz, it must be sold to a Gentile, it is very easy, as there are three sides to this, to allow it, and there is only doubt as to whether it is chametz that is not sold at all (without additional sides of a mixture and of that sold to a gentile in a Didan sale) there is a side in the rulings that it is permissible, although it should be noted that there are also those who are careful in the case of a chametz mixture that is sold as above.

Summary of things
Some of the things from the legal point of view are not required to be worried about, but since in the reality of a store there is no supervisor there and you don't know the seller and the employees if they are God-fearing and punctual and knowledgeable in the Halacha, it is very possible that mistakes can be made, and therefore it is certainly possible to say that it is recommended in terms of kosher to buy at the more elegant place.

It should be noted that without a doubt there are restaurants of kosher and Jewish Jewish people who are more strict about lightening than other shops with kosher supervision, but I did not come here in this article but to offer a suggestion of things and concerns that may exist in some shops of this type.

All of the above does not exempt the person who prepares food alone at home from finding out all the laws concerning it, because just as in a restaurant one can fail in all these obstacles, so does the person who prepares food at home.

And we will end with the words of the Shoah (regarding Gentile artisan apothecaries' tools if there is a fear of them breaking the prohibition) and the soul will feel that these words lead to purity and cleanliness.

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