The result of a stuffed animal is that there was actually a thing here that did not have the shape of an animal and they restored the shape of an animal by re-planning the shape of the skin how it would stand and sit, and here below there is another way to make this thing.
Here there is a prohibition of making shapes, and there is a dispute in the former regarding the shapes that were not interpreted to be made in the Gm that are forbidden whether they are forbidden or not, and it is also discussed in the answers of the judges of our time whether in our time the prohibition is easier since today there is no doubt about it, and as will be explained 27 later.
And here is Yaoi' in the Rama'a and in the Shach Damboar there from the conclusion of the things regarding the forms mentioned in the Gm' to prohibit a model in the ways that are permitted with pleasure mentioned there, but it is forbidden to suspend because of suspicion (I mentioned the main points of the things in another answer), and at this time we enter into the discussion of whether there is a suspicion of foreign worship here or Suspicion Dashaya, and as I suppose the simplicity of things according to the Shach that the suspicion is the one who did it, and in any case it would be forbidden even in our time.
But Dashma must still be discussed in such a way that there is no fear of work at all, but only a ban on doing it for some of the former (doing live animals and poultry) in case the suspicion is easier.
And here it should be noted, according to what we see from the naturalists, that there are two main ways to carry out the process of creating a stuffed animal. it to wither by any process that turns it from a living animal into a stuffed animal.
And here, in the first way, it turns out that there is a form here made by a person and therefore it is judged as a form bought from a gentile, since there are animals here in the Bible according to some of the methods Rad, and Shi' Rabbino Eliakim in Mordechai ZA Remez t'm, and the Rika also took it in Shu'at Pavkat Rochel 33, [and we have already discussed the last ones, apparently the Pokat Rochel himself contradicts his words and the N.D. from Kopi'' it seems as if the quill in the embroidery is because he added an opinion Some of the first ones to lighten with a color that is more sunken, and in any case there was no doubt that it was enough to be careful, but I did not look into it, and from what I wrote below at the end of the answer, the Shu'a thought to lighten with a hawker's powder, apparently he did not think so], and I. "A from the Maharam's answer, which apparently depends on the excuses there) and not according to the BHAG C. Ned and the Rambam HL 17 PG 111 (and A. Yod C. Kama S4) which they believed to facilitate In other forms, as well as the opinion of Rabbi Ephraim in Mordechai Shem ACP in such a way that it is known that these forms are not worshiped, and thus the simplicity of the issue of the GAM according to what the Toss in Yoma Shem explained.
(And there is no division between the Ari form purely and the other forms as long as there are no 4 living together, cf. Batos Yoma ned 1a and 25 Lahdia in the Shhota Hashba 6a Siman Ksu, as well as 1. in 2. Kama s) Animals that are not together are not forbidden, and in the way that the husband is alive it symbolizes luck such as Ari which is the form of Ari, EI 16 SKL, which he made easy by one sign by itself, 16 16 SK 13, and I have taken from his words in a different answer).
ואין בידי להכריע לכאן או לכאן רק לומר שאם מדובר בחיה מפוחלצת אם עשוי בשיטה הראשונה דינה שווה לבובות, והנוהגים להחמיר בבובות (כמו שהחמיר בשבט הלוי ח"ז סי' קלד) יחמירו גם בזה, והמקילים בבובות יש להם על מה לסמוך וכמבואר שרוב צדדים בזה להקל, שהרי הרבה אחרונים הקילו בחשדא האידנא (יעוי' חכ"א כלל פה ס"ו ושו"ת משיב דבר להנצי"ב ח"ב סי' יא), ויש לצרף גם דעת הבה"ג שבצורות אלו אין איסור כלל (וכך לכאורה עיקר דעת התוס' מתשובת מהר"ם, וכך פשטות הגמ', וכן בשו"ע סי' קמא ס"ו פסק ששאר חיות ועופות וכו' מותרים, ולענין איך לפסוק כשיש סתירות בין השו"ע לאבקת רוכל עי' מה שכ' בזה האחרונים, ועי' פלאות עדותיך מה שהביא מ"מ בזה), ומ"מ הפשטות להחמיר בזה, ואם עשוי בשיטה השניה של התהליך בזה הוא קל יותר וכמבואר.
And the above is clear evidence that a dead person who remains in his form is not at all the form of a person to be prohibited by the Act of the Jewish Law in the Rash in the Hapoalim chapter.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6868 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6868
