Is it permissible to pray close to a diaper that has feces in it but the smell is only noticeable up close?

If there is fecal matter with a wafting smell, surely the DA should be aggravated from the place where the smell was contained.

And if it is not known whether there is feces or not, it should be made easier, and for example, with a new diaper that does not have feces in it, there is no need to make it worse at all (and I wrote about this in another answer).

But if there is a reason to be satisfied that there is excrement, it is appropriate to check and find out when it is possible to find out.

And if there is excrement in the diaper and there is no smell coming out of it at all, efi' not up close, it should be lightened (except where there is no tiraha at all to aggravate it, then it is better to aggravate it with a sina'a and not a parhasiya) as if the tatol is covered with an upper garment.

And if the diaper itself is exposed and there is no covering of pants over it, etc., then one should be afraid to make it worse if possible.

Sources: We are going into some issues with this, A. Is covered feces that has a smell to be kept away or is it enough that it stands in a place that does not smell.

And the second subject, is a dirty napkin considered as an abit for the matter to be considered as real faeces if the faeces in it do not smell at all.

And the third issue is the issue of whether excrement in its place is serious for the purpose of not being covered at all or is not more serious for this matter than any other excrement.

And here regarding the first condemned, here is the ruling: Covered excrement is allowed to read Kash against it (Och C. Os. SA and Sab), but in the way that the excrement still has a wafting smell, there is a dispute among the first ones whether it is still considered a bad smell that has a main or No, the Rashba's opinion was to make it easier on this, and Segi on what does not reach him, but the pharmacist's opinion is to make it worse, and considers a covered faeces model to be considered a bad smell that has a main effect, and should be removed from the place where the smell is contained.

And there are the latter who took it as the Rashba and the Gara and the clothing and the HiA took it as the pharmacist, and in the PMG there are contradictions in this, and also in the Bahl (introduction C. et letter 7) what he brought in the name of the way of life and also he brought all these opinions and also in O. S. G.

And the Mishnav in 3 places brought the 2nd opinions and did not decide, and it is true that in C. O. Skag there may be a bit of a meaning that tends to make it easier, and on the other hand in the above-mentioned Bahl it is possible that he expanded more on the opinion of the Oserin (but there is no clear evidence there since Dakai there On the language of the PMG Damkil in this and on this he noted the strict opinions) [And again I found in the tribe of Levi HT C. R. who seems to have understood that the opinion of the BHL is here to be strict about this], and in the BHL C. et Sabv brought in the stama that there is a phlogta in this And noted the above-mentioned Bahl's words and did not decide.

And probably because it is a fallugata in Daoriyata (the stricter ones are stricter than Daoriyata as shown in the above-mentioned Bahl) that is why the Mishnab did not make light of it and did not decide on it, but the rule is that due to the Torah he followed the stricter one.

And it should be noted that the language of the rulings in the KCM regarding covered excrement is "that it does not deserve the smell" as in the Shoah C. O. SB. .

And even for those who are strict about it, the definition of the matter of covered excrement and a wafting odor must still be discussed. Is it a matter of the 23rd that he can smell only after making an effort and getting really close to the source of the odor in such a way that there is no smell that spreads in the room at all, and the way that was allowed to read against covered excrement is only in such a way that there is no Possibility to feel the smell beyond the cover that covers it, such as a vacuum cover or a vacuum cover.

Or it should be said that the stricter model did not worsen except in such a way that at least the smell spreads a little, but the smell does not reach the person reading.

And there is reason to argue that for two reasons, it is urgent to put the issues of covered excrement only in the 23rd of complete coverage that there is no smell beyond the cover, since most covers are not made in this way, and if it is not said yes, then that is how the stricters will interpret the law of covering excrement The Brook explained in C. O. S. 6 is from some of the first, and it does not seem that they came to dispute it.

And Yaoi' in the BHL C. et Sabv who brought the above-mentioned phlogta in abbreviated language to the matter of excrement "that is covered with an additional smell", and urges to say that it is meant to describe something that can only be smelled by effort and absolute closeness.

And in spite of the fact that we do not have a decision in the aforementioned group of arbitrators, and we are stricter than that, instead of having to attach this opinion, it is possible that this opinion should be taken into account.

However, in a previous class that I had the privilege of sitting with the teacher of the Gramm Karp was asked in this way that smelling is only done up close and he replied that it is explained in the puskims to forbid it, and from his words he did not take this as a sbara, but that anyone who belongs to approach and smell enters here into the group of the puskims regarding the matter of covered excrement and a wafting smell and according to the Torah he followed the stricter

And Yaoi' in the Shu'at of the tribe of Levi HT C. R. S. K. B. that he took in doubt, if there is excrement in the napkin, it should be lightened [and we mean anything to which the smell does not reach] and there is definitely excrement, it should be moved away from the place where the smell was contained, and what the lightened in doubt is seen because SS, and it is possible that he also added to this the reasoning that I mentioned that there is a certain rate for what is considered a foul odor and not everything is considered a foul odor, and it also appears there that he believed that there is no need to fear that there is excrement, which is a doubt in the Alma dela mehzeki' isura and reiota sfka.

But he didn't make it easy on behalf of Flogta in Darbanan, since those who are aggravating fecal matter covered with a stank are making it aggravating because of Daoriyata and the like, and the more that there is defecate faeces, then he must there remove DA from the place where the odor is perceived, since the removal of DA is Daurita according to the Bahl's Mish in the introduction Rish C. Et according to the Likoti of the Ramban Barchot 22 EB.

And also the OLC (chapter 55 answer yd) the Supreme Court of Justice took the same view as Gerash and Azner that in doubt there is no need to be afraid, and it is possible that they also included the explanation I wrote above, but it is not necessary that even without this explanation there is sufficient doubt, and they also took another Judges (cf. in the book Vazet Barakah 57 p. 150 and in the book Cleanliness and Respect in Prayer, chapter 6).

And the Garnak made the doubt worse, but all the other arbiters of our time did not act in the same way as above, and for that reason the doubt should be alleviated, and it is possible to say Dethlevi in the degree of doubt and everything according to the matter, and the main point of the words of the Levite tribe is that the person wakes up in such a way that there is a reutah here and AZ Kamer Dafuzti Riota does not confirm, but in the rest of the doubt that can be ascertained easily, I do not take aim at it in general, in the doubt that it can be ascertained from a barrin.

And the Grisha (and this is the Barakah 57 p. 150) ordered according to the opinion of the Mikili that he can remove the odor until the point where the smell is present and to begin with they will clean it first, and here is what the strict ones feared at first is simple, but what he took that the main point of the law can be eased in this, aa "3) that he was confused in the Daoriyata 14A about this, and it is possible that he relied on the above-mentioned evidence that I brought from the pockets of excrement in saliva or that he learned from the Mishnav in the S. A. that I mentioned above that his main opinion was to decide to make it easier, but it is not required there at all and in the Mishnav C.C. SKPD may be of the opinion that the main point of the law is to ease this.

And in the matter of the second condemned person named Hagarshaza (Lichash P.C. letter 5) it was brought that a titol that has excrement in it is judged as a wife's grave (except that water with feet did not make it worse, and it is necessary to find out according to his method that if there is a cover of clothing on the titol Covered excrement is not serious, and on the other hand, when there is no cover, it will be forbidden if there is no smell at all, whatever there is or there was excrement in this vessel at least once, and in fact

And again I answered inside the book Halikot Shlomo and I saw that it is really explained from his words that if the baby is wearing a garment over the diaper, it is not the Meiri Hagarshaza at all.

And for the body of the opinion of the Gershaza, one should look at what Stittul has taken to have a graph definition of rai, since there is no determination here for permanent use but one-time use, and as we found in holy books that use one-time packaging for them which is not as important as ordering it for the book that will need genizah, but it is possible that here it is more serious Since there in the book the definition is what is used by the book and it will never be singled out for the purpose of the book and will never be removed from there, it is found that it is not special to the book, the agreement here regarding a graph is considered to remove any use from this tote in favor of the new use since it will never remove the excrement from there.

However, in the name of Rabbi Karlitz Harauni (which was cited in the book Cleanliness and Honor in Prayer, chapter 6, and it was also cited in his name in the book, and this is the blessing there) that there is no law of titul as law of an obituary.

And the third discussion in this regards excrement in place of the mother, which is prohibited even in the covering, which the MGA (C. Pa SKI'A) made it stricter about it, but the latter disagreed with it (see Be'er Hitt SKB and other latter ones, and also the Mishnab SusK3 omitted this point of The Maga Aish), as well as in the tribe of Levi where Shat resorted to fearing the Maga (and in the paragraphs of the answers of C. Iz letter 7 I saw that he mentioned to some of the latter who believed to be the Maga but I did not have the leisure to check the originals).

However, in the opinion of the Maga, it is necessary to discuss whether Meiri Epi' without any smell at all or with the smell of something that does not belong to him in the opinion of those who mitigate it with excrement that is not in its place, and Yaoi' in KOHH SKZ6.

I wrote the conclusion of the things and their summary and the conclusion to the Halacha in the Rish Teshuvah.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5034 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5034