Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

Is it permissible to pray against the nappy of a baby who has wet and smelled near it but no bad smell reaches the person praying

The sound that is in a square meter is more than that

A) Yaoi' in the previous answer that we extended on the sides of the law regarding excrement in such a way, but in the matter of foot water it is easier, since regarding excrement in such a way that it emits a slight odor and does not reach the worshiper, the main reason to make it stricter is because it depends on the dispute and due to the Torah he followed the stricter, But in foot water there is more room to make it easier because foot water is prohibited from spurning and due to the scribes followed the lenient.

And I already mentioned in the previous answer that the Grisha in retrospect, from the main point of the law, it seems that the kilik as mikilim is afi' instead of a stool and that it should be discussed in the Mishnav C.C.S.D.S.S.L. The Mishnab, what is the main point of his opinion), and once again I found that the KAH (C. et SKA and ISH 19) means that when the pressure is on, the main part of the law is to ease it, and all of this should be combined with making it easier on a more difficult matter.

the worse side

b) However, in a first view, there was room to say that since there are some of the first and last greats who are strict about this, and the Mishnav went on about this and his ruling on this is not clear to begin with, in any case there is room to say that even with regard to foot water, if there is no great need, it is not appropriate to ease the matter at all You can move away or clean the baby.

And according to this side, even if there is a great need, it was not clear that there is room to ease it, because what some of the arbiters of our time blocked, and they are the Levite tribe (HT C.R.) "K" (Cleanliness and Respect in Prayer, p. 5 Sanj), to be as strict as the strict views regarding covered excrement, because none of them mentioned to Haya that there is a difference between excrement and foot water in this (and more on that below).

If the condemned is Dauriyta

c) And there was a reason to say that for another reason, a daff in a great need should not be taken lightly, since in the commentary of the preceding halachic verse 9, in the interpretation of the previous halachic verse 9, that there is a daurita prohibition in feet that are anointed, in any case according to the methods regarding excrement that the rate of the smell is epi. If it is covered, the smell does not reach it, so it must be said that they would explain the same in the matter of foot water.

And who is the old man in the 20th century, p. 16, who agreed in the name of our Rabbi Yonah that there is a law in abat that is forbidden even when it does not smell according to the Torah, since it is unique to the house of the throne, and so I will forget that a serious rabbinic for the matter of daurita is more than just a bad smell, that just a bad smell is not I say yes (see in the introduction to the interpretation of the halacha for Si. et letter 10), and in all this in fact.

And it is not clear to me that they would interpret it that way, because with regard to other bad odors, the rulings and cited in M.N.B. C. et Sk. 33 that the lesson is all that humans can do to regret that smell, whereas with regard to excrement there is no need to come to this lesson at all, as I have extended here In another answer, a model with less than that in visible excrement would be prohibited in this, because of the evidence for this, and in any case, for our matter in foot water, lest they lighten it, a model if it has a smell is prohibited by the Torah, lest we judge it like other bad smells whose prohibition by the Torah is only in a way That it is a way for humans to feel sorry for the smell, and in any case, in the NIDD where the smell does not come to him, the condemned person will be a Durbanan and not a Dauriita, and he will be in this.

Who said that the material was said at all in the water of feet

d) And again I thought that those who aggravated the stool generally worsened it with foot water. And from Mm one should reject dakshain from smelling hol drabnan mashak haka that they have a wafting smell that there is a question of Dauriita in them.

However, I looked at several rulings and in all of them I found that they mentioned what was being discussed only about excrement and not about foot water at all, and perhaps the definition of the bad smell of foot water is only as the bad smell of other things that are not excrement, which hinders only that which is a way for humans to regret the smell and so on, and there is It should be noted according to the Mishnab C. Hach that he was relieved by drinking water on his knees, but it is certain that if he comes near, he will smell what is covered, and there are also some judges who mentioned the matter of a person who has a disease that oozes and was brought up in the interpretation of the halacha.

And from M.M. there is still no clear evidence from this, Berura Dlanin, M.R. that his body was considered a cover, and the main thing is that after the cover, there is no way to smell outside the cover, which is according to the Shari, but this rejection is urgent, it is urgent to say that if it is on his flesh and covered there Kiel is more than a cover whose smell wafts off something.

And it should be noted that in the book Cleanliness and Honor in Prayer, 5 Sang, in the simplicity of his language, it means that the judges of our time have become more strict with the cover, whose smell also oozes in the matter of foot-water in his language, (and it should be noted that the Levite tribe and the OLC that he mentioned there did not speak about Mar. Lahdia but about excrement , and also the Garnak who mentioned a rumor from him there, what he brought up in his words in a comment what was specifically mentioned in his words in a comment there in the name of the Garnak is only about excrement, and I'm sorry about that).

If there is evidence from the Shu'a

e) And Yaoi' in Shua C. Paz Skag that a covering is useful for feet water, but there is no reference from there. Rai' Dehari also mentioned excrement there, and yet we have heard that dishes are aggravated by excrement without covering the place where the smell is emanating, and so also regarding the matter of Mar. Evidence should not be brought (and it should be noted that B. B. Gofia considered the mikilim in the Nidd (Sh. Barish C. wrote on the words of the Rashba and simply he) and it is therefore possible to accurately say in the above-mentioned section that a removal is a benefit as a lesson or a cover for a RL in a cover There is no need for exclusion as a lesson and KL, however in the AR C. Et SKI learned in the opinion of the KSM as strict because he mentioned a bad smell that has no significance in the matter of abatement, but there is no clear evidence from this and that he taught in this way also concludes some rulings and there are To say that there is no clear evidence from this, Dahari HaKsam Lehdia disagrees in his book 21 and 20 on the words of the Rashba that it is simple, and even from other scribes there is no clear evidence, and I did not see the A.R. in the inside except from the 28th).

Regarding Abit

F) And Yaoi' in the Shlomo's Walks, P.C.S. from which I brought in the previous answer the source for the opinion that a stool that has or had excrement in it is considered to be a grave of my husband, there is a dispute about this and the Gershzaa is stricter, in any case regarding the matter of leg water, it is lenient in not considering it Abit Afi' that there is In it there are feet and there is no covering on top of it, because of the taste in it.

And there is no evidence from Shlomo's conduct that is relevant to our case either, since the Lichsh does not intend to deodorize in such a way that he knows that he will smell if he approaches the baby with the M.R., and there is even a meaning there that it is in a way that does not smell at all, and that if he stinks, it means from his words there regarding Halacha Sek" 9. In this case, the Gershaza will consider that there is a law of abit, and it is not mentioned there if there is a definition or a lesson for a stinker for this matter, see there.

Summary of things:

I didn't summarize things at the beginning of the answer as I should in several places, because here I haven't come up with anything absolute for the time being, and maybe I'll have a chance to look at it later, but what I've come up with in the meantime is that there are several sides to relieve the water in the feet from a cushion, if there's a little smell, as long as there's no smell, the smell comes To him, and regarding the issue of abit there is a difference whether it stinks or not (for the arbitrators who are strict about the abit with a wipe in the case of faeces) if it does not stink in foot-water, according to the Law there is no din of abit.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5110 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא:

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