A full sun is allowed with pleasure and it is forbidden to stay half a sun is allowed, etc. in the sources there are more opinions on this.
Sources: Ya'oi' in the Shoah C. Kama S3 and S4 and according to what is explained there from the words of the Rama according to the custom mentioned there in section C, the judgment is that it is permitted at pleasure and it is forbidden to delay it.
And as for the fact that there in the SAG Meiri regarding the form of AZ that is used in honor of Hamma and not Meiri to make light on the form of Hamma, the MM Shu'a there at the end of the sd for this matter Meiri is used on the form of Hamma which is one of those used in Marom Aish.
And also there Efi' in things that are not mentioned in the Psalms are permitted only for pleasure but are forbidden to linger as explained there in Sh. In these forms in our countries it is possible, due to the Rama's miri, to get worse in heat and white more than other forms used in the mountains).
And in the event that there is only half a form of the sun, it will be in the well-known skit that he made light of it, and Ish in Shoa 67 and in Shoa above at the end of Sakho.
And from Mm there are two voices that can be mentioned also regarding the actual painting of the sun, the first voice is the opinion of the 16th in the Skig that renewed that with regard to heat and whiteness only their special forms are prohibited in staying, but the forms of hotness and whiteness themselves are prohibited only in doing and not in staying, and Dadin that he was because of the appearance of the Shach in the Shach, and in fact the Shach took the Skhah that the form of the heat itself is forbidden to stay and was not allowed except with pleasure if it found.
And the second Kola is what Hand Ephraim brought there in the name of the loan Ya'avz Ha C. Ka Drov, who rule in the color and did not forbid except with a seal, even though he wrote there that the sage Zvi did not agree to trust it.
And for the body condemned in the ways of Moses, it means that he thought yes in the name of the Rabbi to lighten the color, and so he took the 16th, and the Shachak in the NKAC part of it, and there are more opening passages of tshuva there in the SKO and SKAZ and SKAH what he brought to this.
And Mm, even though the 16th עם כליכל in the color MM did not actually lighten but in that he does not mean the shape of the zodiac as the Mash there, and is not relevant to our matter, and also the rabbi of the Kop who brought the Patash Sqz DSL to lighten it up , and also the Rabbi DSL for the main rule of making it easier in fact brought it from his father who made it worse, so he says that the permit is not from a khor, and the same in the Yoma Ned answer from the Rabbi regarding the matter of paintings in cycles.
And from M.M. since Div. these voices are not of color, if there is room to depend on them, the 16th verse concerning the form of Hema is an innovation in the subject and is not agreed with the Shekh and is not the meaning of the Shu'a, and the second 16th verse concerning color The 16 Gofia did not ease in the 23rd.
לתשובה זו פורסמו 2 תגובות. לצפיה בתגובות לחץ כאן.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5666 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5666
יש לציין שבחכ"א מיקל בצורת אדם בזמננו כיון שאין עובדים אותו, ועפ"ז יש שהקילו ג"כ בצורת חמה ולבנה. וכתבו שהרב אלישיב התיר בזה, (וכ"כ בשמו בספר על צורת חמה ולבנה לר"צ כהן: "אף על פי שאסור לעשות או לצייר צורת חמה לבנה או כוכבים, אם עבר וציירן על בגד – מותר ללבשו").
אומנם הגר"נ קרליץ כתב לאסור בצורת חמה ולבנה, וטעמו שאין לנו להרחיב דברי החכ"א, מפני שגם היום בהרבה ארצות עובדים לשמש וירח וכוכבים, (אבל אין זה ברור, לפי הידוע לי אין אומות מוכרות שעובדות לשמש ולירח), ומ"מ גם הגר"נ קרליץ הקיל בקונה ממפעל שלא מצוי בו עובדי ע"ז, דכיון שהם מייצרים בכמויות גדולות ליכא בזה חשדא (ולענ"ד קצ"ע בדבריו, דעצם הסברא דבמפעל ליכא חשדא היא נכונה גם אם יש במפעל עובדי ע"ז, וגם אם נחמיר בזה, עכ"פ ודאי סגי בכך שידוע שבאותו המקום שיש בו המפעל אין עובדים לחמה ולבנה, גם אם עובדים לע"ז אחרת, וא"כ גם לדבריו לפי המציאות נראה שיש להתיר)
[אמת כי חכם אחד העיר לי, שלכאו' יש להקשות על כל ההיתר של החכ"א והבאים בעקבותיו, דע"פ ההסטוריה נראה דגם בזמן השו"ע והרמ"א היתה המציאות כמו בימינו, ואין אלו חידושים שהתחדשו בדור האחרון].
ייש"כ על תגובתך
דברתי מדברי החי"א גם כאן