Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

A woman who was widowed for the second time when her husband passed the age of eighty does she have a fatal right to be forbidden to marry again

I haven't seen Lahdia in the A.A. discussed this in the arbitrators, but it should be noted according to the Rama that they used to make light of it when there was a reason to die, such as during a war or an epidemic, and it means there that even if it is still during a war or an epidemic, it should still be lightened since the death must be attributed to the thing, And ei' in the types of the bivms in the matter discussed if Ma'aina Grimm, etc. and the Nfkam in this, and ei' in the name of the Mahari and Weil Dam were 2 times because of a thing that must be hanged on it again one must fear the fatality and it should not be lightened according to his opinion but only in the way that once Once he was killed by his people and once he was killed by a thing.

And here, Annan Damboar predicted in Digit's type, and it was also ruled in the Shu'a Deed Gil that there is a lifetime right of eighty, and after eighty there is no life right of way (and how long does this time last), and so apparently if one of the first owners dies at eighty, and so on in such a way that only one Of the first husbands and not both of them (for fear of the above-mentioned Mahari and Weil) perhaps there is a place to say Dish to hang the dead on the one who did not have the right to life and was about to die as a blessing in blessings 17. In the possession of life and after eighty he is about to die.

However, one must distinguish between the death of an epidemic and the death of one's self at the age of eighty, a devastation has no reason to live but also has no reason to die, Dain Din is sick and not dying and not dangerous, and yet finally it must be said that Damzala Dida caused his death, and that fate may cause Even in a young person.

And it is also necessary to discuss Dashma Gifpa Meiri in such a way that now there is no fear of an epidemic, and SAL'A in this regard, in such a way that the third husband is not the son of F and is in the future to be the son of F, then he will be in danger, even if it is said that this luck is only dangerous from the age of F, and who is If he has passed the sailing age explained in Gitin there and Shu'a 21 according to his method, this doubt does not belong.

And because of its anchoring, perhaps it should be made easier, in particular what is explained there in the NKJV that the main reason for the permission in this is because it was trampled on by many, and this reason is mentioned in the GM in other places (i.e. Shabbat Kecht), but even there it is only in combination with what we found to heal Opinions in the rulings on alleviating the epidemic, and in the above-mentioned Gm Yavmat, and in the 18th century, in the name of the Hardbaz, it only mitigated the lethality of D. and not the lethality of D. Only in B. it mitigated with the addition that the fear of lethality of D. provides a risk, and so for our purposes we must discuss In all of this, and the closure of the judges apparently, we did not find that they mentioned this permit.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6880 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