Without going into what is condemned, dealing with a mitzva in our time, which is condemned in itself, Ya'avi' in Maga C. 16 SKAH who wrote that if the main purpose of the business is to receive wages for the work, he is not liable as a person who deals with the mitzva, and in the explanation of the halacha there he made it difficult for him and concludes in the explanation of the halacha there and A person who aims at both his reward and the name of heaven is considered to be engaged in a mitzvah.
And it is true that the language mentions there that if his intention for both is equally coincidental, he deals with the mitzvah, and it means that if he is more focused on the reward than the mitzvah, it is not included in this rule, and therefore also according to the sound of the interpretation of the halacha in such a writer, who is more focused on the reward, it cannot be said that a person dealing with a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah.
And it should also be noted that the interpretation of the halacha there also mentioned Dafi' if we know that the main reason he started writing was only for a salary and maybe it wouldn't have started from anywhere I say' Deshata who writes has no intention at all, only that he writes just for the sake of the Tefillin mitzvot according to the Akkad law, and this is explained by the fact that it is a kind of umdana In a guess, and it is therefore clarified that if it is clear to us in a certain way that this estimate does not exist, he will not be considered engaged in the mitzvah.
And there is a place to say a fence in this to measure the truth of his intention if he is drawn to be informed in the middle of writing that the customer of the parashiyos will not be able to pay the cost of the writing but only his expenses (and in such a way that he will not be able to sell the parashiyos to another person such as unusual writing or special customs in writing or the client's card) Will he leave his job in this way and stop in the middle, if it is clear that he will stop in this way, it turns out that this estimate of the interpretation of the halacha was not said about him, and he will not be considered to be engaged in a mitzvah, and in particular if he stops Efi' when he is informed that his client will have no other affairs.
Likewise, if the writer clearly says or thinks while he is engaged in writing that he would not want to write at all and would prefer to do something else during this time, only that he needs a living in such a way, no, and the words of the commentary were said according to the Halacha.
And it should be noted that the Demashnav in C. Lech Skkad is just the words of the Maga that if their main intention is to get drunk with it, it is not said to deal with a mitzvah, and if so it is simply that the Sheik Beyor went there even if the beginning of his writing was mainly to get drunk, Amedinan that at the time of his writing he aimed to Q It was not said in a way that is clear to us that it is not so, if it is not so in which way the words of the Mishnab were said, but that there is an opposite probability about this writer who does only for the salary and if only he does mainly for the salary there is no din dealing with the mitzvah.
And MMM it does not depend on the money he receives, but God if he receives a lot of money for his work as long as there is room to say the plausibility of the interpretation of the halacha that at the time of writing he means the Shish, then in the opinion of the BHL he is dealing with a mitzvah.
And those who engage in the mitzvah and do not demand payment at all and only accept if they are given, it is clear that they are considered to be engaged in the mitzvah for the sake of God, because this is the type of leadership that will go to great lengths for the mitzvah, even though it may be and may not be that they are given anything that belongs to them only if it is directed to the name of heaven, and a model must be specified in the GM Sukkah 20 AA and Shua C. 16 60 remembers that tefillin wearers are exempt from the mezuzah, even though wearers must be people who earn money.
And I saw in the rulings on the Mishnab there that he brought in the name of some recent ones who did not accept the sound of the halachic commentary at all, and believe that if he also had the intention of getting drunk (he mentioned there to edit the table C. Leh C.A., wrote Sofer C. Kitt, and other rulings in Shadi Hamad AS 4 of the Sukkah system of 31, and rules letter 5 of the rule of the Aishah, and I still haven't had the leisure to look at the source of the words), and their words from the words of the Gam' and Shu'a that it is explained to Dia that provocations are exempt, and urges to say that those provocations are people who are not They take only for their lives or idle wages and their intention is only for the purpose of the mitzvah, because their intention is just to provoke commerce, and it should be noted again that the Peschim NKJV I. language is exactly like this. The writers of books, Tefillin and Mezuzot, and their temptations and their temptations, and all those who are engaged in the work of heaven, for the signs of those who sell azure, do not see A sign of blessing to the world and if they are engaged in its name, it is explained, and it is explained that the language mentions it exactly, even though in the beginning it is said that they are engaged in business for the sake of trade, not for the sake of heaven, and even though it is necessary to push the daha tyhita and the tyhita MM. These are two completely different things, and I looked at the supplement at the end of Bikurim 55:17, there are those who write books, etc., and all those who are busy who are not for the sake of heaven, and according to the 3rd, there nicha dampersh hattam ladia, not for the sake of heaven, and even on Passovers, perhaps one should say dahu. For as he interprets Lahdia Damiri to the Shash, since they are damasim and if they engage for her sake, etc.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6863 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6863
