למנהג בני אשכנז אינו מוקצה (רמ"א או"ח סי' שח סמ"ה), ולמנהג בני ספרד הדבר אינו ברור כלל. וגם להנוהגים היתר בזה אבל אין ראוי לגדולים לשחק בו כמו שאכתוב בתשובה הסמוכה. מקורות: השו"ע [שכמותו נוהגים בני ספרד] שם פסק שהוא ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

For the custom of the Ashkenazi people it is not allocated (Rama Och 3. Shah Sama), and for the custom of the Sephardic people this is not clear at all.
And also for those who overdo it, but it is not appropriate for adults to play with it as I will write in the adjacent answer.

Sources: The Shu'a [which the people of Spain follow] there ruled that it is assigned, and according to the simplicity of the words of the Mishnav, the name of the Sek Kanz is also in today's balls, since the Mishnav wrote there that what is appropriate to play in does not give him a tool to expropriate from it Allocated, although in the name of the tribe of Levi [Havat 3. 18] and the Gershza [in Yitzchak read on the Mishnav there] and the Gersha [Sabbaths of Yitzchak mokset 55 letter 1] it was brought that our balls are not allocated.
Although in Or Lezion [Heb 56 Tshuva 8] he made it worse.
And I. in a second thread [Hg Pasha SKA] who wrote several sides to this, and also according to him in his conclusion it is not clear the permission for today's bullets for the people of Sephard, Ish.

It was found that since what is being discussed here is the people of Sephardi who follow the instructions of the Rabbis of Sephardi and they have made it worse and since the Mishnav, silencing his words means making it worse, so it is a bit pressing to allow the Shofis for the Sephardim today, but surely the Mekil has something to rely on, in particular that it is a Durbanan who due Scribes have to go after the mikyl, and in particular the Rama'a Efi' bullets that in their time should be permitted and this, and the opinion of the Rama and his assistant should also be attached to the people of Sephard where the opinion of the author is not clear, and in particular a simple sabra would seem to make it easier since it has a tool theory and there is It has a known and defined use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some ideas that can help those who see themselves being helped by them (and these things are intended in advance only for those who are looking to distance themselves from technology as will be explained below). First of all, you need to know that most of the work in practice is to avoid obstacles and waste of time, which by technology is the removal of experience from us, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Below are some ideas that can help those who see themselves being helped by them (and these things are intended in advance only for those who are looking to distance themselves from technology as will be explained below).

First of all, you need to know that most of the work in practice is to avoid an obstacle and waste of time, which by technology is the removal of experience from us, since no person has yet been created for whom the encounter with this will not harm him at all, whether by wasting time, whether by being cold, whether by content, etc., therefore the main and primary solution is to build For himself technical fences that will separate and differentiate man from technology.

And here, of course, the initial thing is to make sure that in everyday life there will be no access to this space, but apart from that, everyone from the place they are can make sure that they have less and less access to these tools, and everyone can also add safeguarding both the amount of time and the limited content, and the quality of the restriction, Because this is the majority of the work to take care of the technical matters and the fences, because from there on the man's powers are limited to them.

Therefore, for example, in Alma, I will say that it is necessary for necessary reasons to subscribe to a computer room, and he has the option of subscribing to a computer room near or far, it is better for him to avoid subscribing to a nearby place if it could cause him to try to log in to check the updates all the time, and also when there is an option to An extended or reduced package is better to pay each time for a small package that will include the use of the same one this time, than an extended package, even if it seems that he will lose money from it, and sometimes there will be an opposite issue such as there is an attempt to bring internet into the home and then there will be an opposite issue for a short period of time to make it easier To use a computer room that will be a substitute for the house, until he can gradually reduce it, and everything according to the case.

Also regarding various solutions that exist for obtaining all kinds of Internet updates not through the Internet, such as lines for listening to incoming email, if it comes to save and prevent physical use of the Internet (such as until now he had Internet and is currently replacing the Internet with this type of solution) what is good, but if It is up to him to decide whether he should or not, surely it is better without it, since surely those who use these services in the end make him actually consume more of the Internet than those who do not use these services, and things are simple.

And a person who is in any situation at the point of his situation can make as many technical fences as possible that will block him from using these things wherever he is, for example someone who has a neighbor with a hot spot who should talk to the neighbor as soon as possible to close the hot spot, and to this they said if I don't have it, who has it And if not now when, and yes if he has any possibility to open an Internet from home, there are many ideas to add fences and fences so that he doesn't come across as an attempt, because this is the main area of control that we have left to deal with the technical aspect of access to these tools and to prevent the possibility of access as much as possible.

The second thing is that you should know that usually and in the absolute majority of cases, no harm will happen if the child immediately and decisively removes the internet from the house, and in most cases the benefit that you will get from this is far greater than the minimal disadvantage of it, and even if he does not manage to endure it, but it is still worth trying, Because as long as he manages to hold on, it's worth it, and even if he doesn't manage to hold on, but there is a limit to how many times he will try until he succeeds, whether twice, three or ten times until he finally succeeds, but in order to go through this process, you need a first and a second time. "20, and if he gives up before the first time, then he will never reach the goal and will never start the process at all.

And another thing is that it is worthwhile and worthwhile to always remain in a state of action in this matter, that is, to be in an active action of avoidance and fences and reservations in this regard, because after the actions the hearts are drawn, and this affects the subconscious and a commandment entails a commandment, therefore every small or large action that a person does to distance himself from this thing benefits the person as a whole and places him in a higher place, and God said, open an opening for me, etc., and if a person tries consistently for a period of time every day to take care of something simple technical that will help him stay away from these tools, every day with something else small, after a while he will find himself in a completely different place.

And here, in all the things here, there is no question at all about what the definition of the charges is, in that everything I have written is only good advice for those who have already made up their minds who want to wean themselves off technology, and there will be more in Rabbi Binyamin Finkel's book Restarting, but who wants to know what the charges are that he is obligated by Halacha, and to behave Only as committed, he will make a wise question.

And all of the above does not absolve us from the great war when we need to use one or another use through the network, and at any time one or another experience, to save as much as possible, and the wise article presented in the duties of the hearts that said you have returned from the small war and now you have the great war, so After a person has made all the possible reinforcements for himself, the main point of the experience and also the final gain is to be kept in practice during the trial, and the most complete repentance at that time, etc. (the end of the day).

And it's true that this guidance does not belong to the column here because the main things discussed in this column are matters of Halacha and legal obligations, and here it is a short article of good advice and ideas for a person to upgrade himself and bring himself to a higher place and is intended for those who want it and are looking for it to reach a higher and more exalted level than just Humans, and I wish we won.

And at first I was afraid to write a tutorial on the subject because everyone has something to correct and who will say I won my heart and decorate yourself first, but I said since I have something to say don't hesitate, and if there is someone it could benefit them and it would be my reward.

Whoever sees himself as someone who does not need this guidance at all, then this means that he is in a much higher rank than the rest of us, and of course he does not need this guidance, and in BH I had the privilege of meeting dear people who have no affiliation and access to any of these tools without any exaggeration.

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

הנה מאחר שאם נר המערבי היה כבה היה בזה סימן קללה, עי' ברפ"ד דיומא דף לט, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה סימן קללה בימים אלו, שהרי כל ענין השמן היה הארת פנים מיוחדת, שהרי טומאה הותרה בציבור וכמו שהעירו המפרשים, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

הנה מאחר שאם נר המערבי היה כבה היה בזה סימן קללה, עי' ברפ"ד דיומא דף לט, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה סימן קללה בימים אלו, שהרי כל ענין השמן היה הארת פנים מיוחדת, שהרי טומאה הותרה בציבור וכמו שהעירו המפרשים, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה אז סימן קללה, ומידי דברי ראיתי בכמה ספרים (ומהם אגודת אזוב, אור תורה, אהל תורה, אור עולם - מאיר נתיבים ועוד) שנקטו בפשיטות שבחנוכה הי' ג"כ נס של נר מערבי, והיינו דלא מסתבר להם שנעשה נס בשאר הנרות ולא נעשה נס בנר מערבי שיהיה יותר משאר הנרות, ויש להטעים בזה ברמז דענין נר מערבי בגמ' נזכר בסוגי' דנר חנוכה וכן הפסוקים בר"פ בהעלותך שמשם נלמד שם בגמ' ענין נר מערבי נקראים אצלינו בחנוכה.

ומצאתי דבר חדש בצפנת פענח הל' חנוכה פ"ג ה"ב שכל ענין נס חנוכה נעשה בנר מערבי שדלק הוא לבדו בכל יום ונעשה בו נס שדלק ונותר בכל ז' מים עד למחר וביום הח' שוב דלק עד למחר, והחליפו בכל יום לנר חדש, וא"כ בדבריו נזכרה תשובה לשאלתך.

ומ"מ יש מקום לומר שסימן קללה הוא רק כשכבה בקביעות כמו שהי' מ' שנה סמוך לחורבן, שיש בזה חריגה מדרכי הטבע כמו שאר סימני קללה שהיו אז, אבל אם לפעמים כבה לפי דרכו אין בזה סימן קללה, וכן בבנין שלמה למהר"ש מו"ץ דווילנא [מהדו"ח עמ' שנד] משמע שנסתפק בזה.

ומ"מ כפי שהערתם כל הנידון רק לפי הצד שחלקו את השמן והדליקו בכל יום מחדש ולא לפי הצד שכל השמן נשאר מיום לחבירו ויעוי' בב"י הל' חנוכה, והמג"א בספרו זית רענן על הילקוט ריש פרשת בהעלותך נקט שדלקו הנרות ח' ימים ברצף בלא שכיבום כלל ודלא כהב"י.

!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

He came out with this (and more in the sources below), and it is not appropriate to say that he came out with this only in hindsight, in the sense of hindsight that God forbade him to act like this in the first place, it is not appropriate to say yes, since all of them are correct formulas from the first and were cited in the Shoah and the New Testament, but what is recommended is To drive regularly as people...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

He came out with this (and more in the sources below), and it is not appropriate to say that he came out with this only in hindsight, in the sense of hindsight that God forbade him to act like this in the first place, it is not appropriate to say yes, since all of them are correct formulas from the first and were cited in the Shoah and the New Testament, but what is recommended is To behave regularly like the people of his community, and if he knows his father's custom in this, some say that it is preferable to behave according to his father's customs, and if he is a penitent, some say that he is not bound by his father's custom and can behave according to the custom of his sages in this way, and some of the judges mean that in their words, even a repentant person is better off acting according to his father's custom, and some of the judges who mentioned that it is not appropriate to mix formulas but to say everything in the same formula and not to combine them.

And the main point in all of this, as far as it pertains to Halacha, is that if there is something in which the original wording is known, it is appropriate to say the original wording, and in something that has several correct formulas, if he has a clear community to which he belongs, he will act according to the customs of that community, and the rest of the things mentioned are matters and recommendations on the part of leadership, and retrospective matter does not belong to them.

Sources: In the language of the scribes and the sources, I extended the Shu'at with Segulah, and in the Lichash, a prayer and in the language of the scribes that were cited in the book Gadoli Dorot on Mishmar Ashkenaz custom.

And in completing the things, it should be noted in the context of what the questioner is clarifying, does it belong retrospectively in a wording change, i.e. does it belong to say that it comes out only in retrospect, and the answer to this, Dahann, is that we accepted a wording change to Didan that is only in retrospect, as explained in the commentary to the halacha ss 12z and in other places and akmal, However, since there are several correct formulas here and all of the Mishnav C. 6 concerning another change between two formulas as far as God forbid delete one of them (since both are correct), this cannot be said to have been done retrospectively if he did it according to the Rambam instead of according to the Rabbi (i.e. in the above-mentioned Mishnav C. regarding the matter of the settlement if it opens, etc.), and despite the fact that the language mentioned in the Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, the latter does not hinder at all, i.e. according to the Rama's opinion that it should be said that he builds Jerusalem with his mercy is not Impeding if in retrospect he did not say, and also according to the Hagra that in the first place it should be said that he is building Jerusalem is not impeding if he said he is building Jerusalem in his mercy, but to Dan what is the angel Michael to me and what is to me the angel Gabriel 4. The formulas are correct to Dan, and what belongs in retrospect if he acted as a different method, but if he belongs Any community is subject to the discussion here of not congregating, and even though there is a B2D here in one city [i.e. Yavmot Yad], if one belongs to a certain community it must be discussed, and what the Hagam has allowed is not allowed to heal a community member A who acts in a certain way as members of another community in a way that is evidently not doing according to the custom of his community, this is because all those belonging to his community practice the same (such as A from Lithuania who practices in Parhasya B. Nakvim in his Talito).

And in body L of the above-mentioned Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, it should be noted that the model of the language in retrospect is a language that has degrees, and like what Damari' in the Gm' mitzvah regarding the obligation of permission to say to her, and the matter of everything, if he came to the king we would tell him to do so, Doing otherwise is considered backward, but something that if he came to the king we would say to him do this and if you wish do that is already another level of backwardness, and is not really backward like the above-mentioned first kind of backwardness, and in the Nidd, if he came to the king we would say to him bless As a certain opinion, and if you want to bless as a certain opinion, we find a model of what the Mishnav mentioned to a tongue in retrospect, perhaps not completely in retrospect, as it remains in hindsight in other places, and therefore the accuracy of the Mishnav in retrospect does not hinder at all.

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

B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks. A response to the language of King David begins with the word "Who shall I drink water" etc. will go...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks

Answer

The language of King David begins with the word who in our Hebrew is known as I ask you that one of you will go and drink water, etc., although when we look at the Aramaic letter, the meaning of the letter "mi" means something that is avoided, such as who you thought, etc. And in a similar usage, we also find in some readings that used the language of who to express something that is forbidden, such as who knows the strength of your spirit (Psalms 36:11) and who knows the wise man will be, etc. For many others, the so-called question language is nothing more than a matter of prevention and the absence of reality.

And it must be interpreted with the taste of what God simply says in the interpretation of "Who will draw water" in this way, since this is how it is explained at the end of the things and he attributes them to God, who did not say their names, and it does not appear that He sent them.

And it should also be added that it does not appear that what David meant when he said "Whosoever will draw water" is for them to go and water him, it is the way of a king to reveal his opinion in this way but to command and command, and from what he said in this language, he did not mean that they should go and water him but as above.

And it must also be said that the GAM must interpret it as such, since it does not appear that David asked that for the sake of his studies and his Torah they risk being monitored, since according to Halacha one should not risk for the sake of clarifying Halacha or Din, and this is what David meant by what he said, who is my old man in the above manner.

BK Set AB Gabi Measer AAG Dammon is high, etc. Gabi Kerem Rabi AAG Dla Mamon Didia is, etc., and why did the language change between Mesher and Karam Rabai?

Answer

There was a place to say Dashigra Dalishna in the Alma is because of the issues of Dobpaschim and in the Sukkah on the tithing of a high amount of money is to Rabbi Meir, but from the change of the language pedia and profanity it seems that there really is a different definition in the tithe which is a definition of holiness and in Karam Rabi which is a definition of prohibition, and most of all remember about the tithe of the language pedia which was taken from another authority , and on the back of the tongue, blasphemy is mentioned, and it is easy to understand.

And M.M. in the question 22 about the language of the variable in the Gm, I would suggest to Katar to look at manuscripts and books that I have collected, such as the book grammars of Maharrab Neta Rabinovitz and the complete grammars of writers, as well as the Friedberg project.

BK AA AA, why is the word Emeri mentioned several times in the subject

Answer

It is known that there were many Amorites from the order of the Gam' after it was written, and therefore there are tractates and issues that are written in the special language, like the first ones regarding tractates, and also 20 a few other first ones on a number of vows whose language is different, and also 20 on a number of a monk, and the things are known, and I. In the order of Kabbalah for the Harabad, it took many years for Rabbi Ashi's students to get the Gam' in order, and it is known that some of the issues of the first 20 are from Rabbi Saburai and Achmal.

BK AA AB, and I did not say to you in the Orta, I ate in Shara Datorah, and the verse there (DA DLA) wrote that it was Rui in the fast.
Why don't they interpret it literally?

Answer

A. in Shovat Shlomat Chaim Yod Sacha who had a hard time with this, and T. Shem Dakhion Daran was married to Debi Nashirah A.K. He must have had meat every day, and in Shovat Aterat Paz HA volume 3 set "7 20 Yes and he further added that this is what was difficult Gach Rashi that Gach did not interpret as simply, and A. Yahbetz who expanded on it.

And perhaps it should be said in another way that Rabbi Nachman believed that he had an educational benefit in the Torah, of course, that G-d would let him eat it, and as Ihu Gofia said about wine in Erobin, 1900, before he repeated his words that he would like to drink wine first, so that it would be reserved for him, 17 Da'ta Tsiluta, A.S. (and A.A. in the words of his rabbi in the Bible on the issue of wine), and A.C. the reason he did not eat meat even though he thought it was good to eat it was because he was fasting.

Because of Sumachus, they said that they pay double payments and he pays three times for a month and two years for a ram, why didn't Shar and Sheh take a lickshana dekra.

Answer

The answer to this is clear, that since it is about payments of two years and three years, they took the Ishaq that speaks of two years and three, which is the written two tithes for a cow and two tithes for a ram, and they took a silent sign of Damanchot just as we found that they took a silent word that is similar to it in many places, the Ishak regarding theft payments that speaks About four past five does not belong here because there is no four past five here.

!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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Attributed to the Israel Defense Forces

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

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

Joshua's face

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

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

Edit the table

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

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

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

PMG

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

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

The holiness of Yot

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

The lands of life

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

More recent ones

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abarbanal

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence from the words of the

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

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

Evidence from the words of Mordechai

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

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

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

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

In the opinion of Shuat Binyamin Ze'ev

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

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

In the opinion of the TPAI

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

The opinion of the great teachers of our time

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

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

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

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

The detection probability of the morax snail

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

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

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

Does it belong to conditioning?

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

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

Additional concerns

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

Still in the opinion of the great sages

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

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

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

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

Last method

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

Addition after time

In the matter of the article on blue is not mandatory

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

A general comment on the matter of light blue

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

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

 

&8212;footnote&8212;

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

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

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

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

In retrospect, the dough is allowed since it was hermetically sealed, but the microwave needs training by heating with water as explained in the books of the judges. Sources: A. Yod Kah, A and AGM Yod M. Net, Drachi Tshuva and K.H. in Shoa there, and see in detail in Sefer Kashruth p. Med and p...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In retrospect, the dough is allowed since it was hermetically sealed, but the microwave needs training by heating with water as explained in the books of the judges.

Sources: I. Yod Kah, 1 and AGM Yod M. Net, Drakhi Tshuva and K. H. in Shoa there, and see in detail in Sefer Keshrut p. Md and p. Mh.
And if the food was not closed and the vessel was not a day old, the food was not forbidden, and if the food was not closed and the vessel was a day old, he would make a wise question.

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