A question regarding the law of a house built in a building that has a KHNAS at the bottom, except that the KHNAS is not directed directly against the house, and there are several other sides and details in the NIDD as will be explained, is there a prohibition of one year against the KHNAS.
The writing of the Shu'a [Si Na] one should be careful not to use the leaves that are on top of the B. A constant use of derogatory words such as lying there, and other uses one should be satisfied if it is permissible to use the name after the fact.
a) And for our purposes, it seems that the main reason for allowing this is from the point that the house is not directed against the Hanas, but against another apartment built on the floor of the Hanas on the side of the Hanas, and in this the Shua does not mean that it is on top of the Hanas.
And Yaoi' in Shu'at Far Hador [3. to] the Rambam's opinion that it is possible to use Efi, you shall use it indecently in the ascent as long as it is not against the temple, and I. Lahida [see in Mohabbar letter 4 and Haim Al Ha'a C. Well] it seems that he leans after his opinion [but in Barchi C. Kana they only brought it as an opinion].
And if so, all the more so, he is in this matter a friend who is not against the synagogue at all.
And it is true that in the Shoah and in the rulings cited in the Bible, it does not mean that, but rather that one must be careful about every space in the synagogue, and even in the 20th century [C. Kana Sak M] who brought the answer of the above generation, it means from his language there that they brought ACP only in the matter of a use that is not obscene, in which one should trust and ease the words of Par Hador, MM there is a place to say here not Peligi who rules on the Rambam but in a matter that is not against the temple, desbri that the strictness is against all of the synagogue as the simplicity of the language of the Rabbis In B.I. [ibid.], but for the matter that is not against Bhaknes in this he acknowledges to the Maimonides even for an obscene use it is legal in this because of sanctity at all.
The first scholars [quoted in 22 Shem] who discussed the matter of the offerings of the synagogue learned this by comparing the ordinances of the synagogue to the offerings of the Ezra and the temple, and mentioned that Daggin and the altars of Dezera were not sanctified [Pesachim p. Yach according to his likeness, and it was also brought up in the Mishnab there [sec. lat], and it is evident that the temple will not be sanctified except against the temple and not on the side of the court, and as will be explained below from the words of the mishna in the Ma'ash [Pb 37], there is no make our case worse than that.
And the Zal Mishna in the above-mentioned second tithe, the chambers are built in the holy place and open to the holy ground, etc., built in the holy place and in the holy place, and open to the holy place and the holy place, and their roofs are opposite the holy place and the holy place is opposite the holy place and the holy place is opposite the holy place.
And simply the intention of the Mishna is that the same chambers are open to both the holy and the holy in B. Petchin to one chamber, in this their law is that they throw sand and holy arrows against the holy wall, and likewise on their roofs the ruling will be that only what is against the holy wall and in front of it will be holy and what is against the holy wall And outside the sand, and this is even though there is no wall or partition below between the sanctuary and the sand, but it is clear that if the tabernacle had not been built, the partition would have been a stretch in a straight line from the place it came to where it continues there now, and it is also explained in the Yoma [as above] in a tabernacle that is open to the sides and built In sanctification and sand, he rules that half is sand and half is sanctity, and indeed refer there to old Tos.
And apparently [by Houn Rich and Hanat Eliyahu in the name of Yerushalmi] regarding the roof there is no difference between the chambers themselves being open to the holy only or to the holy only or to the holy and the holy, a model if the chambers themselves are open to only one of them, mm the roof opposite the holy is holy and the opposite to the holy is holy, (In the way that there is sanctity for the roof, such as the chambers in the temple or the chambers of the Shavin for the land of help, cf. Pesachim [Fo 1a], and cf. below).
Dahana is built with sand and is open to sanctify Damari' in the Risha Damtani', its interior is holy and its roof is sanctified and its roof is sanctified, so in this case the sanctity is only against what would have been under it if the temple had been in a straight line, but look at Gm' Pesachim there who interpreted Risha Damtani' in a different way see There, and however in the Nidd of the Bihkenas it does not belong to actually study these laws for Kola, since according to the Bihkenas any place that is holy at the bottom, such as that used for prayer, is considered holy even without this, and it follows that what is open only to sanctification is itself holy, In the Temple everything is in writing and not in usages Talia Milta, and in this sanctity did not spread to the roof, even if I interpret the 'matani' as simple, but ACP in the Nidd in the question about Bahkenas Myri in such a way that it is also not a roof to such a place open only to sanctification.
And since the aliyah is built on top of an apartment that is not open to dedication at all, and the aliyah itself is not open to dedication and not even to the area built for the dedication, therefore there is no concern about the sanctity of this elevation.
And since Dathan for this to pom orchan, perhaps there is a place to renew the law of the 10th Segi for this matter to be considered as equal to the land of help [according to the Sukkah 5 AA it never came down, etc., and Moses did not ascend, etc., as it is said that the heavens belong to God and the earth, etc.], and in this If the roof of the chamber is equal to the land of the relief found in the chamber itself, it was brought to it as a sanctuary and the chambers were not consecrated, and there in the temple you will want to sanctify in the chambers that are open so it is The law, but 1717-16, the Mishola is as if it were built with sand, the defilements will not be sanctified, but if it is open to sanctify, it is as if it is built with sand and is open to sanctify, then in Sipa Damtani', the Mishnah will settle, meaning that it is from the chamber itself that it is sanctified, and there is sand from it, as well as In the roof, dams and meiris in their roofs are equal to the relief ground and built in the hole, so it is considered as built in sand and open to sanctification and to the sand that has no sanctity in it at all, since it is not built in sanctity, and if the meiri on the floor of the chamber is equal to the relief ground, then the roof and the elevations are not sanctified The above.
And according to our words, the attic roof should be settled a little higher than the relief ground within ten, it is still found to be equal to the relief ground, as well as the loft itself, even if it is a few mm deep, is aimed at the air of the relief ground in its upper part, although apparently if this excuse is true, the HGM to settle Yes, also about difficulty, 'Drisha Damtani', and lest because he is pressing, it is better for him not to settle in this way.
But it should not be said in a different way, it is the body of the Mish that if there is any of it in the Kadesh, RL that if half of the chamber is built equal to the ground of the relief and half of the chamber is built in a legal settlement as half in the Kadesh and half in the sand, DLPZ is found a Damsh against the Kadesh is the roof that is not equal to the land The Ezra is higher than it, whereas the M.S. against the sand is the roof equal to the ground of the Ezra (that is, the roof opposite the part of the chamber that is built in depth and considered as a pit), and on the other hand, towards Lia Dema, what is built against the sanctuary is sand and what is built against the sand is the sanctuary, so we found that the roof of the pit is equal to the ground .
Admittedly, according to what is explained in the Gm, they wrote there on Risha Damtani' Damiri in the adjacent chambers of Alzara, so also Sifa Damtani' should be okami bahchi, and so we did not hear about the matter of the roofs of the temple being raised against the sacred dedication.
And M.M. Sabra is thus the second opinion in this as well.
b) And I'm in the Mahari'at [Yod 12 34] that made it difficult for the holocaust between the Bahkenas and the temple, the temple's roofs of the entire height read the same written in the name of the temple and also the elevations are all written by D'Ekkad, and also If we do not accept his difficulty with the words of the arbiters of the Halacha to be lightened, according to his explanation regarding the roof of the temple, the prohibition to use the roof of the temple is because the scripture called a temple, and the scripture certainly did not call a temple for the roof of the party, such as the cells and the hall (and p. The following [in our words about Menach Shlomo] is what we wrote in another way for the well of the sanctity of the Ascensions that is in the Temple).
c) And we will return to our subject, what we wrote to permit in such a way that the house is not built directly against the synagogue, yes, it is possible that the intention of the Mishka in Shuat Beit Halevi "L, and regarding the beginning, even though many have ruled completely as the Fahd, the radar is more simple than the Shua'a and the judges are drawn to be stricter in the entire area of the Akal, and in all the area the DRAL should be interpreted simply in the entire area of the Bihkenas, for the perspective of opinion The modern luxury is only what is directed against the temple, but if there is a ban on the use of the entire aliya, then it is for the mimer in the entire aliya, and this seems to be exactly right.
c) In the Halikoth Shlomo [Tefila Chapter 19 33] written by the Great, Hadar above the synagogue will determine the bedroom on the other side of the apartment, which is not above the synagogue at all, and in the place directed against the holy ark, etc., he will not use any utensil there at all , but we will leave it empty.
And the bedroom where a man and his wife sleep is called for this purpose an indecent use, according to Sefer Hassidim [C.
And since in this halacha it is mentioned retrospectively, and it is not written that it is allowed to pass on the floor above the synagogue if it is not opposite the synagogue, it should not be precise from the language that it is only retrospectively, it should be said that I will pass away in the way that has already been passed and not in the way that it was in the first place if it is allowed to pass there And the Book of Solomon's Acts was not composed by the late author himself), and rather in the note there 20 that it is heard from him that this instruction was more serious than the main part of the law according to what was explained there that there was a house ruling between them.
On the other hand, on the other hand, he is within the limits of the situation of Diabd, who was already there, and there was room to allow more than the main point of the law. Not against the temple, and it is as we wrote to be precise from the language of the above-mentioned Mishnab Dabeza should not be lightened as the glory of the generation, but he did not use the language retroactively so as to listen to them in the first place will not come to the generation there at all.
And in our opinion, Duff the place of the apartment itself of any use that is not obscene is already better than the case that was brought before the owner of Mench Shlomo, if his house was there, his share was on top of the synagogue, and told him that the obscene use will not be done by the synagogue, but only use that is not Also obscene is the one that is not in front of the temple [as explained there], but here it is that a use that is not obscene is not made on top of any space above the synagogue.
d) And by the way, what is left in the Shu'at Menchat Shlomo [Ha C. za] about the words of the last geniuses who wrote things about the laws of Gegin and Aliyah, and he wrote there and Zal, and the Lanad Delkaura Tsa Dema Sabra is Daggin without partitions, they were not sanctified, and if Just make partitions around them and call them by the name of Aliyat, the sanctity has already applied to them as well, and we also need an explanation because the mention of the scripture "Aliyatyo" proves that they also sanctified the Aliyats, and it is possible that they needed it for other needs, but not to be sanctified in the sanctity of the temple, and it is absolutely impossible for Aliya without a roof. And so it is simple that the roof is also the pattern of the hall in general and from 4 and Afia we say that the roof is holy, and so it is not said that the scriptures required to make elevations mm.
Look there at length and you will understand his words.
And in my humbleness I did not have the privilege of understanding these difficulties, as Meiri wrote everything in writing from the hand of God on me the wise, and this is written and his ascents, that the ascents were also in writing, so it does not hang at all in the partitions but in what was commanded in the Rohak to be done on it because the temple will be sanctified only.
It is found that everything that is in general the commandment and its elevations according to the form commanded by a higher mouth is in general holiness and its elevations while not commanded is nothing but a mere roof.
Although I do not intend to reject a simple fact in his explanation of the sanctity of the Ascensions which is like the Mahari'at.
And while it is true that according to our opinion that it is a law "everything in writing" it should still be made more difficult based on what should be made stricter in our churches because in them everything is not stated in law in writing, and in a hurry it must be said that the first arbitrators explained that it is a dishonor that we have to liken the form of the synagogue to the form of a hall For the matter that his ascensions also have sanctity in them, since it is called in the Bible a little sanctified, and i.e. in what is the words of the scribes regarding the second Passovers [].
e) Another addition must be added to this is the ruling of two floors between the floor of the synagogue and the floor of the apartment in question. There are some of the judges who wrote that there is room to ease this, and there is also the ruling of one floor. plunder.
f) We should also add here what he wrote in the ways of Moshe [C. Kana s.k. 2] and Zal, and what Maharishi Weil wrote in his passages [at the end of his answers C. Nev], whoever enters the synagogue together if it is permissible to sleep and lie on it, and I answered the desri dafilo Laman Dasser does not forbid, but rather the built synagogue begins to do so Dumya Dihichl Damiiti Minya Raya in Mordechai Chapter Kama Dashab [3. Rakah] Akal, and so on Rama [Baha Haga on Shu'a ibid] and Zal, and all It is precisely in a permanent synagogue that was built prior to this, but a bribed house after it was built for the Synagogue is allowed to lie on it.
And according to what the Mishnav wrote Damm Shumer Nefso will stay away from it, etc.
However, regarding the matter of annexation, there is certainly room for this annexation, given that in Nidd it is an old building, it is obvious that the apartment below was designated only after it was built for the synagogue.
And it should be brought to this in the Shu'at Avni Nizar [Och Si Lev Skav] who heard that there are no practices according to the 16th century (the stricter in the use of derogatory adversaries in the Church in this manner of the Rama'a) in the great places Sha'a Get a place to pray there if they have to make sure that there is no apartment building above.
And it is necessary to add to this MS Ba'al HaKhi in the letter [printed in Kareena Dagarta 18th C. Po] that in large towns that used to make it easier in general is what the deceased said in KHM [Shabbat Kecht AA; Yabmot Ab 1a] Dahaidna was discussed by many Shumer Pethaiyim 5 (Psalms 16:6), and the name is not for everything that is forbidden by the law, but for this matter Dharma that the latter warned that there is a danger in it [cit. "S Kana], p. 17, HaKhi Dakhion wrote that from the point of view of the law, this should be eased with regard to the danger, says Shumer Pethaiyim 5.
And I. in the response of the tribe of Levi [Ha C. 27 and Ha. C. La] what discussed the matter of the synagogue that is located inside a building in our time and the reference to it, there is room to say that it is easier see there.
g) It should also be added that a person forbids something that is not his own [Pesachim TSA], and since this is joint property, then it is similar to partners who have a house and one of them sets aside the house for the Knesset. The partner in this house, and it should be reviewed?.
Moreover, on the part of many who inquired about a way for themselves what they inquired about [Iroubin Tsad], is it also useful to prohibit a court in the Khenas when they sought out a place for themselves in the Khenas without the knowledge of one of the owners, and this is the law of many who inquired personally about Meiri only in such a way that they lost a way there [BBK 1], and here is that they have a different law in the Bible, and from the Bible it seems like Titi Ha, and that many people were robbed like you are in the BB there, and what is the dish for many people to sanctify the street? , and the NPC that if the street is sold, it will be forbidden to buy a minor thing in it, that is, on a street that is in the public domain, and no one has more ownership of it than another, as a harmer by distinguishing the house to another house, so that no one forbids something that is not His, and 27th century?.
And it is true that the judges abroad who discussed in their time about the increases of the HaKhanas did not mention so much a law that is similar to our case, since the form of construction as it is today, where there is a multi-storey condominium, did not exist much in their time and in particular a building in the HaKhanas, which when it was built entirely there (and p. above), and in many of the cases his aliya was built from the collection fees of the Hanas and from the property of the Hanas and for the uses of the Hanas, and there were not as many churches in their towns as in our places here, and therefore the main thing that we discussed about it is really in the way that the aliya It is owned by the endowment of the Bahkenas, and therefore it is possible that their words are necessary for our case.
However, for our purposes there is reason to say that Dachion, who did not ask for it, agreed to it and as a Demitzer that was held by many [cf. Rashbam 22 11 45 that they held], and in any case he does not have the power to argue that his permission will not be sanctified by their prayer, and she believed A minute, on the one hand, there is reason to say that a place that is not owned by the worshipers cannot be forbidden, and on the other hand, if he screams, lest they should not hear him, and he should not scream, and not for any reason.
And Shu'a [C. Shaza 17:17] 20 of a strait that many people held with permission, it is forbidden to spoil it, and the text of the HaSma'a, KML in this way when they held it with permission, it is forbidden to spoil it, Masha'k when they held it without permission .
Who is all that many are now holding in front of us claiming for them and Amerinan Dabodai in the permission they held it ak.
And most of all, for our purposes, there is room to say yes that they claim that they received permission from the neighbors to pray there, and from M.M. it should still be said that he claims that he gave them permission to pray but not to sanctify and forbid his house.
h) It is also possible that there is something to be added to make it easier because there was no regular Knesset here, and I did not inquire into the details of the case here, and the Lichosh there regarding the Halacha [SKA5].
9) It is also possible to add to this that there is apparently no Aron Kodesh and Saath in the above-mentioned Bahkenas, although the tribe of Levi [Hat Si. Lev] who wrote to make it easier in this way that there is no Aron Kadesh and Saath relies on the opinion of the present generation The prohibition is only above the ark of the Holy of Holies, and it is permitted above in the Synagogue, but as we explained above, this is not the opinion of the first ones quoted in the Bi and Shu'a, but that we wrote a dish to learn from the words of Rambam ACP regarding the area of the Yehanas itself, and also a dish to attach The Rambam's opinion ACP as a side addition, emphasized on the B'i that if he had seen the answer of the glory of this generation he would have brought the B'i along with the rest of the Rishonim.
j) It is also possible, according to what is said there, that this is not really a bahanas, but a house and a witness for Menachah and Arab prayers, and I did not go into the length of clarifying the laws that belong to it since the reality of this is not clear to me.
At the end of the matter and the conclusion of the issue, it is necessary to make it worse since it is not against the territory of the synagogue, and at the very least there are several parties to add here as branches to ease and remove from this prohibition, the least of which is not explicitly stated in the GM.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 3930 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/3930
