Here is a law of Arva that forbids a foreigner to convert because of appearance, lest they say that we have come from a severe religion to a minor holiness, Ya'vi' Bivimot 21 A. and Shu'a A. H. C. Rest. .
However, here there was room to be satisfied with that, on the one hand it must be said that here it is serious because the man carrying the side of his kinship is a kinship of a family because of his father, a mature adult and a convert who converts on both sides there is no real kinship, but it is very narrow to say such an opinion, yes Sus In the second cases (that is, both in Ger and Giyorat and in Nidad) there is no complete closeness from one side to the other.
And on the other hand, here it should be said that it would be easier, since this gentile was never his sister, and what was forbidden to him before we converted was only because of gentiles, and in any case it is not appropriate for us to claim that we came from a severe sanctity to a minor sanctity.
And in the matter of the act of Tanan [Yavmot 22 1a] and his brother is for everything except the one who comes over the gentile and the slave girl, and Ish in Gm' [23] the hilfatut for this, but in fact in the case of his sister from the gentile 20 of the Rama'a [ah E. C. 15] And above, it is forbidden to come upon her at the beginning, and some (interpretation because some are satisfied, etc.) are content to say Dadoka (interpretation of Dashma Doka, etc.) from Dauriata, a child goes after the slave girl and after the working star, but from their spur, O his seed, therefore one must be strict with the beginning ECL.
And simply, his intention is after our conversion, before our conversion, as long as Man Deflig would allow this, and the prohibition of Darbanan does not belong in this, Dain Darbanan on Darbanan, as demonstrated in the 2nd and the Noch Yod Rish C. Paz Iash, however in the 16th in the name of the clothing is divided The Rama'a is obliged to do so and permits after her emigration because she is a minor as a child who was born.
And also in part a lawmaker there was puzzled by this and concluded that Achaz found yes in the name of the light of the arm, and in truth the latter did not have a light of the arm until the time of the Mishnab, and this also caused contradictions in the last words in the name of the light of the arm, and also the clothing is the main part of his puzzlement that it does not appear that we found anyone who would be more serious about it , and if he saw the words of the OZ, lest God be afraid of his words.
And it is necessary to note a model that was mentioned by the name of the house Shmuel according to the Sugi' in the CP which says in Kiddoshin Set 1A, a model should be noted in the words of the Rambam in Hal Yavum and Halitza in the name of the Rambam another model whose son or daughter converts from the Gentiles are not exempted from the Yavum, also there He noted the 3rd according to Hagm Dekidoshin there, and I. further in the 10th chapter on the above mentioned Rama's words.
And Yaoi' there in the Arusha of the 6th and the late, the daughter who was born of his father's family and is a foreigner is allowed to shana Doldan they do not refer to him after him but after them as a mash in the fourth chapter and she is not his sister and he is not allowed to come to her at first because some are content to say Dashma only from the Torah The child goes after them and urges them on, O his seed, therefore it is necessary to make it worse at the beginning and alone from the dam, while she was a slave, it is forbidden because she is a slave, and after she was freed as a small child, when she was born, blood and clothing are allowed, as well as in a foreigner.
And the meaning of his words in the Mish and alone, etc., he wanted to say that the opinion is thin (we mean the opinion of the light scattered according to the Mishnat), we would say that after if she was still a slave, etc.
However, what he opened at the beginning of his words that Shashai Lishana Tsa, Dakhion Damsik later in his words that there is a prohibition of biya to begin with, so it is certain that Lishana is forbidden to begin with, and apparently she will be created if this year is not this year, dishes are permitted and some are prohibited to begin with, and Tsa, and maybe R.L. Lishana from the Torah is permitted and from M.M. Ladidan is prohibited in the first place, etc., but this interpretation is also ZA, since he has already concluded in his words, Delbed, etc.
And also the continuation of his words that he wrote and alone this, etc. "To be afraid of the above opinion, (in particular Decamer before that it is permissible to lyshana and aka miri with it after we convert), so I want to interpret a daf after we convert is forbidden in the first place because of this opinion and maybe it was allowed to begin with after we convert, and the language needs an explanation.
In fact, there is no way to make light of the fact that the OZ, the Rama, the Arosh, and part of the Noach made it worse on the Shu, and it is also not clear that God's intention was to actually disagree with the OZ, and it is not clear that he saw the words of the OZ (and "A in the HoM C. So), but one should not object to those who behave like this to Kola because this is the simpler method since the prohibition is not expressed in the GM and the simplicity is as small as the one born as the 16th Mash in the name of clothing and even the last ones who took to make it stricter did so only to begin with, And it is necessary to find out what is the custom of the courts in our time in this matter.
(And as for whether they grew up together in the same house, that's something to be discussed on its own).
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 4419 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/4419
