Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

A father who is faithful to the sanctification of his mother is also without witnesses of existence

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

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

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

And Zal Rama (Baa'ah 17 36 66), in the name of Peski Mahara'i (1874 69) just as the father can consecrate it himself, so can he consecrate it through his emissary, or by himself , that he should say to her, Go out and receive your sanctification.

And the Rama wrote there, and it is necessary to say so to her in front of witnesses, since the messenger of Kabbalah needs witnesses, as explained above in C. 35, section 3 of the Akal, and I.S. B.N. that he did not appoint the apostles in front of witnesses of existence, since there is a side that the appointment of the apostles is from an Arab state, according to the reserves.

And it is explained in the words of the arbitrators that this is the case that is judged only in the matter of the witnesses of the mission, whether they have the right to be witnesses of sanctification in person or not, but the witnesses of the sanctification in person must be there and without these witnesses there is no sanctification.

And Shu'a Aha (C. 16:33) 1. Bezhal, a father who said that he sanctified his daughter, and after that she sanctified another and said that the first martyrs were in the invalidity of testimony from Dauriyta and it is nothing, faithful.

And in the Hajj there he added and LN precisely while speaking faithfully, and as will be explained next to section 25.


And it is explained by DMM if we accept his words that the Rishon Kiddushi were in front of invalid witnesses, there is no doubt that the Kiddushi did not take place, although according to this side Len does not care to say that this is how he consecrated his daughter, since there were no legally valid witnesses in front of him.

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

In the Great Knesset [Aha 3. of the Hagat letter 21] wrote and Zal, who sanctifies the little one whose sanctity money for her father and the witnesses were impermissible for him and not for the daughter, there is no fear for his sanctified ones even for the consumption of a divorce.

The late Rabbi Aderbi Z'l Siman RLA, Rashdam Ha Ha Siman 33.

And the Rabbi HA CG added that since the father had already died at the time of receiving the testimony, there is no beit mihush in these sanctifications.

The compiler said, and it is clear that the temple is the greatest among the witnesses who are close to the father and far away from the consecrating woman whose saints are holy, but what I am satisfied with is the father who sanctifies his daughter is small and the witnesses are kosher for the father and invalid for the daughter. Kosher for her father and sanctified money for her father, there is no sanctity here, or at least no sanctity.

And he knows that from this law I discussed a written document that was signed by witnesses close to the father and distant to the illegitimate daughter, since the woman died without viable seed, it is repeated partly because of the Tolitula regulation or because of the custom or because of the condition.

And like Lakshoi, even if they are close to the father's relatives who are worthy of his heir and distant from him and the daughter, they will be disqualified for the reason that if she dies without a building, and the father is already dead, they are the heirs.

But the spring there in the late Rashdam will show that even if they are close to the Father, however, she is kosher in the Great Knesset.

And it is clear from all the condemned that witnesses are needed, and at the end of his words he discusses about witnesses who are close to the father and from this it is clear from my opinion that the father is actually the recipient of the sanctification, and I. also in the Mashardam there.

And it is explained in the second chapter that witnesses exist, and if the father comes and says that there were sanctifications, but that they were not in front of witnesses, this is a falsification according to all parties, Dalit Bho Mishsha.


מק"ט התשובה הוא: 3809 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא:

עד כמה התשובה הזאת היה שימושית?

לחץ על כוכב כדי לדרג אותו!

דירוג ממוצע 0 / 5. ספירת קולות: 0

אין הצבעות עד כה! היה הראשון לדרג את הפוסט הזה.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9723!trpenRelated Questions!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen