Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

outloo1k_48235bdc2f5935e3@outlook.com

A garment that smelled on Shabbat is it permissible to wear it and use it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer code is: 3287

!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