Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

Is it permissible to feed stray animals in the Yot when he enjoys it and does it for his own sake to give himself a good feeling and mental health

You must not do that.
Rather, he will let them know at a distance so that he does not come and take it from them, and then it is permissible to begin with.

Sources: Yaoi' in Rashi Bitza 23 EB and in what the Toss brought his words there and it is not clear there all the necessity is evident from his language that there is a prohibition of tirkha without the necessity of a madauriyata, and it is not clear where we find a prohibition of a tiraha of a daurita, and indeed Yaoi' in a mikhilta in P. Bua and Baramba" And in what I mentioned in my commentary to the Darshbi's michilat in another place according to the Ramban in the Makkah, but even if he stated as the simplicity of the matter, it is correct that it is a prohibition of drabnan and a tkun of rabban as a kind of dauriyta to also forbid for the purpose of eating the soul of an animal [Ral thus must interpret Rashi there ], apparently he is even if he does it for his own pleasure, and it is true that there are things in the Holy Spirit that are allowed if he derives pleasure from it, as well as the tyracha of eviction from house to house was permitted in the Spirit if it is his own home because he guaranteed a person a transmission within his own as the rulings in the name of the Jerusalem , MM there is a reason to say that the limits of the permits are different, that the prohibition is only when the definition of the act is that it is not necessary, but on Shabbat and Yot everything that was prohibited on behalf of Tirkha, we did not find that they allowed what was not permitted according to the limits of the law, such as shilling fruits, etc. [Rafa Davitza] and such as Meninin 4 and 5, etc. [Shabbat 26], and anything from which there are ways that were forbidden because of a tirkha that was not necessary today was not allowed even if he claimed that he enjoyed it very much, and the

And here is also the opinion of Rashi Devitza. "According to their words, it would be forbidden even in Nidad who enjoys it.

And it should be noted the opinion of the Toss in Bizza 23 EB [Dala Krashi there] as well as the opinion of the Toss on Shabbat Ko and 25 Barshi there [Dela Kmash Rashi in Bizza there] as well as the opinion of the Rashba and Ra'a and Hr. "N [as brought out in the explanation of the halachic Rish C. 133] that he is on the side lest he side with them [and in the Shu'a there are contradictions in this whether he ruled that he is an assigned state or a side state, and I. from 1923. The Tos' that is out of fear of side, but also the other side in the opinion of the Shu'a is only that it is on behalf of Moksha as above and not purely on behalf of Tirkha], and if so according to the Rambam's method that it is on behalf of Moksha and Shi' The Tos' and the majority of Rishonim that it is on behalf of Zida, of course there is no permission feed animals on Shabbat even if he says he enjoys it.

And indeed I have seen in the name of the Garnak [Torat al-Malachot p. la] a dachsh that is done for the purpose of catching and killing the Be'ah of which I do not consider that it is done for the sake of the animals the prohibition is only when it is done for the sake of the animals, and there is only a prohibition of hunting and not a prohibition of placing food in front of animals, and I. Shaari Tshuva C. Shatz 16 SKG in the name of the Maharittz C. Ramah was brought in the Torah of the Crafts there, and here it really is a very new thing, (and it should be noted that the Dagoff discussed there belongs to the one currently discussed in the Rabbi Rish C. Paz does it belong Durbanan's prohibition on the prohibition of Dauriyta, but perhaps we should learn from this (in other ways that the prohibition of Dauriyta is not), but even after renewing it, you do not want to add a leaf, you have no choice but to renew it in a way that does harm to the animals next to them and not to their benefit at all, but In a way that does the best for the animals and also means for their benefit and that's what makes him feel good, this is not Meiri Garnak, and it must be said that it is included in the words of the decree that the definition of the decree is in a way that does for the benefit of the BAH and that is included in this decree.

And the advice to do in the permitted way is to give in a way that is distant from them in a way that there is a recognition in which there is no fear that he will come to take from them as the Maga C. 136 and was brought in the 20th century, the name of the SKA.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6795 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6795

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