Regarding the making of a vow by a small miraculous person near a man, whether it is kosher or not [and also whether it is kosher or not [and whether it itself can be asked, and there is no one condemned for it here], and the elders of the Re'a, the late C. Ag, ruled that it is a big question, and it is certainly In the vows of the 18th century, this is what is said here, and what follows is what is said in Shchuti, except what follows is Aaron and his sons and all of Israel, etc., and according to the Rabbin they are all qualified to permit the vow, and as Damari' later in the Gm, there to qualify in the laymen.
And apparently, because Delfi' was slaughtered outside, aka aa to a wonderful little Milf, next to a man, because he was honeyed, besides, he was like a complete little one, and we were about slaughtering himself, Debia Airi, read and afi' Laman Damer, don Mina, and ok on the spot, Akhti Ha Haka does not rabbinate women, but there are In general, a vow and the question of MM are not kosher to permit the vow, and it should be pointed out in this regard to the Leviticus of the Megillah of Mordechai in the name of Rabi'a who came to compare the obligation of a Dasha to the Dektan in the matter of the Megillah A.S.
And Rashi and Toss disagreed as to whether or not a minor is obligated by the mitzvot on his own or not, and Ramban Fligh Arashi on the measures after us, but in this I admit to Rashi that there is no obligation on the minor's part on his own, and if he did not mention a model in a miracle, the obligation is not on him, so no Apparently it belongs here and ok in situ, since the small Dain is generally charged as a large one in foreign butchers and benders.
And Yaoi' there in Tos' [published by Oz and Hadar] that they wrote and Madafik for Had Okmi Atalta as a law according to them three, and Yaoi' also in the language of the Rashbam in the 22nd 20th century, but others allow it such as three as a court of law as Damari' in the Sanhedrin, etc. Q. And so it is urgent to say that a person who does not belong to a family belongs to a family in breaking vows.
And there is no clear evidence here because the relatives are kosher and do not pretend to be legal as Damarinan on the previous page in the vows there.
(Al. in Shu'at Re'a, ibid.).
And it is true that the subject of external threads has relevance to the little one since he sleeps in the dedication, but the main study here is not about the one who prohibits it, but about the one in whom the prohibition is said himself, and also a woman who sleeps in the dedication and yet is not permitted by vows.
And even in this there is no clear evidence because later on in the Gm, where Amirinan Dehilfota vows to foreign slaughterers, there is a question about the endowment, and by the same token, I am also here regarding the matter of the endowment and not only the matter of the act of slaughter.
And who is Beit Shamai Bandar, the name of Delphi, for the law of the laymen, from the Bible, after us, it is necessary to sit down on the matter and urges to say something between them about this matter.
To the body of the above matter that I was a miracle near a man for education laws regarding whether the charge is on the father or not, it would be in the form of a denzir [?] dish on this side that there is no mitzvot of education in a miracle near a man for the purpose of excluding his son from being a monk (for whom it is because of the mitzvot of education) Because he can already swear by himself, and perhaps we should learn from this model the form of the thing is that the obligation is imposed on himself, and yet it is not necessary that we consider it as a minor in ignorance.
The answer code is: 3805