Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

One whose hands are not clean is it allowed to answer Amen

The Chazu'a and other arbitrators ruled that it is permitted, and it should be made stricter to take one's hands in such a way that one is obliged to bless because one hears it as a confession.

Sources: See Eshel Avraham of Botshatash Pad who tended to be strict in a way that comes out of the obligation of blessing, and in a way that does not come out he was satisfied and did not decide, except that before that he wrote some things on the matter, Dadin Amen as a reflection, as with regard to the middle stanza of a bath, as well as on the previous matter, Neti Shacharit, and his provision on the matter of dirty hands If his judgment was a reflection on the matter of the inner house, etc., so is the judgment also with dirty hands, and why was he satisfied with that, and indeed before the Neti of Shaharit that God is easy for him to make it easier because it is easier when he does not have his hands filthy (that is, he groaned at the hands of Damanki) then he was only initially for the sake of the Zohar not to say holy things like that, so he tolerated it, and it is understandable why he tolerated it more, but it is difficult if it is for the sake of reflection why he did not tolerate all dirty hands in the raids, and urges to say that he repeated it again and again Sal Leah that there is no master like reflection, yet why is it accurate to mention in the beginning the Neti of Shacharit, and urges to say that he meant that his hands are dirty and the word of the present is taken, it is difficult to urge in 2 Deuteronomy.

And it is true that in Kahach 4 Kah 20 according to the zohar, when he took his hands in the morning, the artist pondered in his heart, but it is already explained in the 20th century, 24 sak sa, regarding the seriousness of the zohar on the first NTI, there is no halacha like the zohar in retrospect, only that it is not from there. See regarding the subject of the condemnation of the worshiper with really dirty hands, and ii. of the 21st century, regarding the saying "I thank you that his hands are clean."

And there are those who have brought a view from the RMA SS Pad that it is forbidden to say Amen in the bathing house if one's hands are not clean, (and the above mentioned HAA is only in the inner house and the same in the Mishnab there SKZ7), while I admit that they differ The latter, if it is allowed to be said in the unclean places [see comments and additions on the Mishnav 31 ibid.], aka Amen Hamor, but to the latter Pmash, my imagination in the inner house as above, it is still not possible to prove from the Rma Davids that they are filthy, it is forbidden to answer Amen, Daha Ashkhahan Dharharur is allowed with hands that are not dirty and the inner house of a bather is forbidden, and for sure it is also the same in the Amen of the Law.

And Yaoi' in PMG Rish Talev Damboar in his words that one should have clean hands when answering an Amen, and perhaps Meiri is precisely in the blessing that comes out upon hearing it as he proposed to divide it by the above-mentioned AA from Butshatash, and the reason is because it is heard as an answer, and similarly, perhaps to begin with, but admits Davidibed when there is no His hands are clean and he has already heard the blessing, he will answer Amen.

And above all, Hashel Avraham of Botshatash, to be stricter with the blessing because he hears as an answer, and I clarified that the PMG's intention with regard to the examination of chametz, both the BH [C. Kefg] and the PMG [Mishbaz, ibid. SCG], since he hears as an answer He is not allowed to be in the open, and from that in any case Shmai' Gach Dam does not intend to go out, they did not make it worse, and in the end he did not rule for him to make it worse, and in any case there is a reason to say DHA for our matter.

The chazoa in the laws and practices of the 29th 20th is considered a man when his hands are dirty, and so on in the praise of Adam A. This is not to be aggravated by the fact that he is a religious person, and in light of the words of the above-mentioned judges, the 27th should be placed only when he does not intend to go out with the blessing.

The answer code is: 2525

!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