It should not be permitted even in a place that is not the authority of the majority according to the Torah, and even if the little one does it on his own, even if he has reached education, it is actually difficult to make it easy.
Sources: We found a few things that allowed Efi' to come out of clothing, but only in things that have a clear purpose, such as a piece of jewelry or something related to clothing [in conjunction with the nobles of Zaara, so here even if it is related to clothing it does not belong], or something that is void of clothing, or varnish." In the matter of not being afraid that if it falls, it will not come to shake like a thing of disaster like fluff to its nidatha Sha, Na, which also does not belong completely, the definition of rescue from sorrow is that which comes to save from something that is a way for people to regret it, and like the other permits that allowed for sorrow in other places] or the seal of the slave when it is made in such a way that there is nothing to shake it after it falls or something that you will certainly not remove such as strands of hair, But in such a thing that there is no point in allowing it, which is not a betrayal and is not a jewel and is not void of anything and is not tied to anything and is worth being humbled and is not fixed in his mouth at all, and it is in general things that are not a fabric in which a dilemma was feared, we will fall and I will let it go, so I will allow it.
And with regard to the claim that all of the fabric was not cut off [Shabbat 6], first of all it is precisely in the sewing [I. Sha, 23 and M.B. Pad], and secondly, if you sew, it is only useful if the way is that way, and here it is not the way to do that, and there are variations This is contradicted by the scribes as to what the condition will be the way, the Dhamb where the SKPAB brought in the name of the Rashbaa Debai' a need or use for the garment, and in the Toss [Nach 11 45 21] the language is mentioned that it is a thing that should be done with all the clothes and it is The beauty of the garment, and on the other hand, in the MM that were brought in the annotations and added on Mishnav there which led to contradictory differences in this.
And I. in the book Tuamiya Chaim Zacho who extended it and I relied on his words, and to the body what he extended there to discuss the rai' from the one who eats with his mouth, I did not understand why he extended it, because he does not intend to use it continuously for the body but for the act of eating only, and what he discussed there on the part that if it is connected there is no dilemma in this, I did not understand, After all, the fence given by the sages that will be considered connected in this rule and will be excluded from the derivation rule is that it will be woven.
And when the little one was taken from himself and he didn't get to education and he was a Carmelite see Rama Shemag.
And according to what the Mishnav explained there, a first opinion in the Rama'a that a child who has reached education is all obligated to retire him, if he does it on his own, and a second opinion in the Rama'a, which is the opinion of the Shu'a that only his father is obligated to retire him, and also just the M.B. Shasev, Med ACP on the matter The prohibition of Darbanan and perhaps Dauriyta as well, and the MAB in S. Shemag, 7 brought the decision of the Hia David Dauriyta Azli' as the first opinion and Darbanan as the second opinion, and the opinion of other Rashunim [cit. The father is also not obligated to separate it and it is permissible to lay the couch in his hands, and in the explanation of Halach C. Shemag means that he did not rule out this permission altogether.
And from Mm in the Nidd here there is another claim to Hamura dha dati lathoi belongs also to the father in the garment of the little one, to the shi' of the maga sha, a heart in the name of the tos' sa ev.
And even if it is said that there is a holkin 17 [and in Sefer Tuamiya Haim Zakko according to the Ramban quoted in S. Shet regarding the dinar], does Mm Annan Kiel Dachl what is forbidden for a grown-up must not be allowed for a small son to do [Sho'a Shmg for PMash in Bhal there], and even though there are some who disagree with this, there are the aforementioned words of the General Assembly, and to add two votes together to allow a small one against this Shu'a and the last ones who decided like it and also against this General Assembly, he A bit tight, and even in the worst case it is not necessary in the opinion of the Ramban, because of the above-mentioned Kahamga in the name of the Tos', and as he wrote in the above-mentioned book, the Ramban, which was cited there, does not give me any advice on the matter of giving to the little one, but only because of his feelings. [by C. Shet], and there is still no opinion regarding the matter of giving the little one hands that there is no fear of a dilemma regarding the father.
(And it can be argued that I would like to forbid it in the opinion of the Ramban from the small reason if it is not explained in the Gramma in the aforementioned book what is said in this dish the difficulty of the Toss, and there is also what he brought there in the name of the Gramma in the above-mentioned book).
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 2908 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/2908
