In honor of the esteemed rabbi, the famous rabbi, etc.
His Holiness Rabbi and KTS
Regarding the question of whether it is permissible to pray on the third day of the week or on the third day of the day during rush hours in places where there are studies the rest of the year.
And it should also be noted in the explanation of the question, please, that maybe there is a bit of rush hour here, MM, the rush hour is not over here yet, since, and apparently from the question, it is about places that even after Tel Aviv there are no classes in them until after the end of the school break time as is customary in the places these
And here are the issues to be discussed here in connection with this question are 3. In the Megillah [5 12] and in Ta'anit [14 12] and Kmash in the Shoah [3. Tkna 72] the definition of a building of joy is the building of a wedding house for one's son.
And the second is to discuss whether whitewashing is a thing that was forbidden by tradition according to the other mourning customs mentioned by the judges, and in particular according to those judges of our time who mentioned the custom of not washing one's house on the third day of the month, in general, two hundred portions, which is more than washing a house.
And the third is to discuss whether there are permits for this at the time of need, and whether the time of need is any kind of convenience, considering the time of need, since it is possible with added effort (perhaps it is more difficult to find craftsmen, and also it may be more difficult to engage in this during the time between times), to do this Even after the 12th at the beginning of Shavuot, reading Haftarot 7 Danakhmata.
And it must also be discussed to allow it from the point of view of the necessity of studies, that is, the necessity of a mitzvah, for the necessity of a mitzvah, everything is stated by the Rabbis of the Rama in the Shu'a there, in such a way that it is Talmud Torah (and the fact that there are opinions in the scribes, a model of the necessity of livelihood, the consideration of the necessity of a mitzvah for certain matters, mm it is difficult to make it so easy).
And here is how the judges explained the words of the Yerushalmi [quoted in the column and Shu'a there] The definition of the permit to allow the construction of a wall that tends to fall is because the shape of such a building is not a matter of joy, Efi' that the ultimate goal is for the purpose of joy as the Rift Rabbi and Rabbi Damiri Beit Marriages which are essentially a building of joy, MM since the purpose of all the contradiction and the building here is for the purpose of correcting the danger, he did not consider it as the need for the joy, and as the 16th SKV extended there in the explanation of this permit.
And if he has a reason to do it right now, perhaps it should be said that he is happy not to, but there is no room for discussion on this side. That there is proof here that it is not for Simcha, and if it is implied that they did not accept it, then there is absolutely no reason to ban Simcha from the State near the Tabernacle, and if it is false, why did the last judges discuss this, it must be discussed in Davkotel Goha, since there is There is no danger in this Efi' from a custom, but not for the sake of meaning in Yerushalmi as above, but for the sake of danger Dafi' to His, they say the above is permitted in such a way that there is danger since you have nothing that stands in the way of the danger.
However, the 16th Gofia who discussed this did not mention such a permit at all, but instead explained that the permit is due to a decency that repairs due to danger and did not consider at all a building of Simcha Efi' is a wall of a wedding house and so on, and added the 16th Efi' a loss of money c. As the Minister of Social Security does so because of the financial loss and not because of the joy.
And PD 16 in the Nidd will certainly be a minister since he is doing so for an important purpose that is equivalent to a loss of money (apparently), and because there is no element of happiness here at all, and therefore he will be a minister of Efi' Marach.
However, according to the 11th column in the column of the writers of Delphi, the Gm' in Babylon, any building is forbidden, Efi' a building that is not of joy, and the same ruling as theirs is the crowning of elders on the Shu'a there, and I. in the possession of a deer to the student of the Bah'ah on the Shu'a there, what he wrote for Beer also The intention of the Jerusalemite himself is that any wall that does not tend to fall is important to both the Babylonian and the Jerusalemite as a threefold building for this matter, and in his language that Kushta Damilta took, it means that he took yes to the essence of the Jerusalemite's intention, and his intention must still be discussed.
As for all you have opinions (meaning the opinion of the Lord, they say in the column and perhaps the opinion of the Nachalat Zvi) in the NDA there will not be this permit, in particular that plastering according to the way they do today with the putty is considered a building according to the definitions of the laws of Shabbat, and Ish in the above Shoa In S. Tikna regarding the matter of painting and the sink of a wedding house, there is a place to say that the plastering of a wedding house and the house of every building is forbidden, not precisely because of joy.
However, to Kushta Damilta, it should be said that the majority of the rulings in the rulings like the Shu'a that a deduced ruling of Simcha is forbidden and according to the opinion of the first ones who thought so.
(Also on Shabbat and Shabbat and the rest of the New Testament).
But even according to the Shu'a, one must still refer to the decision of the 16th for the purpose of a loss of money from Shari Diaoi' in the Maga of that year in the name of the Bi in the name of the Haran (and it was brought up in the 2012) a building that is only for the enjoyment of the Alma is forbidden, and after all According to the 16th Psalm, everything whose ultimate goal is not happiness is for Beit Hanat Shari, and urges a division between loss and welfare, since according to the taste of the 16th Epistle, there is a place to hear a division in this and say that in the interest of welfare that does not lose anything in the eyes of the main body of the building It is for the purpose of happiness, mm does not mean Dhamja Meiri only in a wedding house.
And Yaoi' in the well that brought the words of the above-mentioned Maja and in the Sec. Rather, it is a building that is for welfare, and the words are not clear from where he took from the words of the 16th of the 16th, from where did he take the dinah of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th century, the law of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th century, took the Dina of the 16th of the 16th, of the 16th of the 16th of the 16th century, as a rule for the 16th of the Maga in the name of the Rabbinate. He of marriages, in particular Daharan Gofia [brought to his word below] disagrees with the definition of the Rash and the Tor regarding the matter of Simcha, and the 16th does not agree with the Haran on this.
And also in the article Mordechai Meshak to disagree on the 16th.
However, according to Yad Ephraim, what is said in the words of the 16th and the above mentioned by Yad Ephraim and in the PMG that the Shachat indicated to them that they doubt the view of the 16th.
And I. What discusses the opinion of the Torah regarding the rest of the matter of the lost.
And Yaoi' in the 20th century brought both the words of the Maga regarding welfare and the words of the 16th concerning loss, and it is clear from his words that the building of joy for weddings was not actually a building of happiness for marriage, but a davnin for well-being, since the apartment is not considered a building of joy, and apparently the main words of the 16th are In Sabra, it seems that it is for loss, it is not for the purpose of happiness at all in a wedding house, and in the case of the need for welfare not in a wedding house, and the definition of the Rabbinic regarding the matter of a building of joy is not as defined by the Rash and the Tor, and the Shu'a and the 16th Azali as the Rash and the Tor His son-in-law's house is a calculation of joy.
And perhaps the Mishnav saw the words of the 16th only for the reason that they did not prohibit the matter of the lost as a sort of reasoning brought by the above Torah, but in his words it seems to go like the words of the 16th, only from dividing the matter of well-being into loss. is not a form of joy.
And from the point of view of this division between loss and gain, we have already found it well in the above-mentioned, as well as in the opinion of the 16 Gofia.
After all, it is certain that many of the arbitrators do not agree to allow it for the sake of well-being, and therefore it must be prohibited from the law in the week in which it falls, and the Lord's Day every nine days (cf. Yavmot Mag 11 and 12).
And the very thing that can hire laborers more cheaply these days than after the 12th century does not consider the matter of loss or loss, as demonstrated in the PK Damok that only labor was allowed in the 23rd century, and thus it is possible to consider welfare in the Alma, but Yaoi' C. 1995, section 5, and in a simple way it is seen that if he happens to have cheap goods from Meiri there, but in the case of a permanent thing that the laborers are paid cheaply, then he does not consider the thing lost and 11, and I. in the 2012 name of Sklad who brought in his words Mish Aronim Damiri only for a rare profit And it is not found, (and it does not belong here since there is no fixed rate for works according to the fixed period of the year in the whole market), and perhaps the division between crafting and buying.
Apart from this, Sha'a has a rule to do during the rest of the year, but only among the Egyptians, or when there is a clear mitzvah necessary because of the whitewashing of this dabza, it is permitted among the Egyptians, according to the law of the Maga and the Harar regarding the synagogue's Dahua Mitzvah Deravim (and regarding whether there is no Necessity of a mitzvah because a divulge must be done before the school year.
(Once again, it occurred to me to resolve the contradiction in a different way regarding the subject of the lost, since the noun commodity is the subject of the lost, and according to the language of the Gm' in the Speck Damok Prakmatia the lost, only that the worker is prohibited in the craft in the HOM, and afi' goy everything that is not done in accordance with the necessary legal contracts has a statement in it For the Akoum Dasor in the Homam, but here in the Nidd that the prohibition is joy and not labor, so that as soon as there is here the loss of the owner, again there is no prohibition on the laborer, the laborer certainly has no prohibition on the part of joy, 24 when there is no Prohibition on the part of the owner, in accordance with the law of the day that the prohibition on the laborer is a prohibition of work and as above, and the prohibition of work that is imposed on the worker does not permit the matter of loss, and the PZ in Nidod in such a way that there is a loss will be permissible, and from the M.M. the definition of the matter of loss Here it is not according to the definition of the rest of the lost thing that we mentioned in the HOM, this will also be allowed for the worker, and if there is a reason to renew such a permit from a prison, and I. above in what will be explained in the words of the 16th).
And from the body of the above-mentioned Maga's words in the name of the Rabbi, which were cited in the Mishnav, welfare is considered as happiness, there is a reason to say that if the definition of the building is for welfare, but if the definition of the building is not for the purpose of welfare, it is not considered as happiness.
And Ya'oi' in the original language of the Rann in 2 Shem Shekh and Zal, from Damarinen in Yerushalmi He gave Datima in a building of joy, but if there was a wall, a cave, and he was built, it means that a building of joy is the one who builds a wedding house for his son Delao, but it is the same for every building which does not need to be done except for decoration and entertainment in Alma Akal.
However, for the Nidad, one must review the principle that the building is for necessity and not for welfare, but the construction situation at the moment that is doing this now is only for welfare only and not for use, and it must be reviewed whether it considers happiness or not, and the opinion tends to not consider it as happiness, but from what its proof is from the simplicity of the Jerusalem To forbid in all shades of the Achar Ral that everything that is not for consumptive use is considered welfare, and therefore the Rabbinical pretends that it is according to the welfare law, since it is a change, it does not necessarily have to be a consideration of happiness. The unnecessary and it is defined as joy, a thing that in practice he will need and is only ahead of his time, the condemned MM concludes the study of the things in Yerushalmi, which means "Delo" is precisely of joy, but everything that is not necessary at the moment is silent, "Dakhotal Goha" to fall down in the 23 And that's it.
And according to what can be said, apparently the Mishnav made a sort of compromise between the opinion of the above-mentioned Rash and the opinion of the above-mentioned Ran, there is still room to argue and say Derek with complete ease considered the Mishnav to be a matter of joy and not something that is consumed and not consumed Now I don't think this is something to be happy about.
Regarding the whitewash of Tammuz, to begin with, it is the same as the days before the 12th century in the name of the Maharil.
And it should be noted that we have accepted some of their laws even as a week in which it falls, and there is a Jerusalem authority for this custom as a mash in the Bihagra, apart from the fact that there is a need for a clear mitzvah that must be permitted in this.
To sum up the matter, if the only option is to dye at this time, it is permissible, and the Miz in Tammuz should be preferred more than the latter of the RH, and if there is an option to dye at another time, it is possible that this is permissible, neither from the point of view of the lost nor from the necessity of the mitzvah of the ACP to the Pad, the majority of the puskims that they did not receive the 16th permit as a simple matter, and there is no clear voice in this in the language of the above-mentioned Rabbinate.
And if there is a significant difference between the salary he is paying now and the salary he will pay between 2012 and the beginning of the school year, the matter must be settled.
May we see the comfort of Jerusalem
The writer is for the reader only (and in fact there is an ISH)
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 3822