Several questions

To the Honorable Rabbi Maran Shlita, I have a number of questions. I would be happy if he would answer some of them…

A] In the book of Magi (Megillah 4:1): The Rabbi said, Purim, which began to be on Shabbat, is a day of questioning and inquiry about the matter of the day. Why is Purim even a day of the ninth of the month? Moses prescribed for the Israelites that they should ask and inquire about the matter of the day, the laws of Passover on Passover, etc., Purim is a trifle, which is why we are deduced from it because of the rabbi, Kamal. And in the second part of the book, Ammai Pishita, in the book of Magi, even Purim is included in this law, did the Rabbis only prescribe for the feet, and why are the days of Purim included in this law. And in the second part of the book, this law of questioning and inquiry about the matter of the day is from the law of Talmud Torah, while the law of reading the Megillah is from the law of Nissa's publications. And we will understand this, for one who does not understand that he is not able to study the Torah, and from MAM fulfills the commandment of reading the Megillah, the main concern of which is Nissa's publications. And so, the Rabbi of Purim said that on Shabbat, they ask and demand about the matter of the day instead of reading the Megillah, which would mean that they are carrying out Nissa's publications, and as the Rambam says (P. 1 of Megillah 13): And they ask and demand about the laws of Purim on that Shabbat in order to remind us that it is Purim, so. And so, what makes the Gm. difficult about the law of asking and demanding about the matter of the day? Is this only a law of Talmud Torah, and also the reading of the Torah on the festivals is a matter of Talmud Torah. But the law of asking and demanding about the matter of Purim is from another law of Nissa's publications, and they are separate laws. Another ts"b, dvgm' means that only in the way that Purim falls on Shabbat do they ask and demand about the matter of the day, but on Purim that falls on a weekday, they fulfill this obligation by reading the Megillah. And how do the Y"h"h ask and demand that it is a law of Talmud Torah by reading the Megillah, which is only a matter of Nissa's publications and does not need to be understood. And as Maran z"l Deshani said, reading the Torah from reading the Megillah, since its foundation is the law of Talmud Torah, there is a law to understand, whereas reading the Megillah, which is all a matter of Nissa's publications, there is no law to understand. And so how do the Y"h"h ask and demand by reading the Megillah. [And from the tm"h of Bhanach, the law of Purim that falls on Shabbat do they ask and demand about the matter of the day and fulfill Nissa's publications in this, that is, they fulfill Nissa's publications by reading the Torah Talmud, and certainly it should be understood that there is no obligation to understand in reading the Megillah itself. And see the language of the Rambam there, asking and demanding In the laws of Purim, and in Rashi's Megillah, there he wrote the commandment of the Purim letter in plural, and perhaps meaning "hech" and not "fleiygi".

[2] The rule is simple (Shulchan Ach Ta'a, 1) that the blessing 'He who brings forth bread from the land' is recited over the first matzah on the night of Passover. However, the blessing 'He who brings forth bread from the land' is recited over this matzah, since since he fulfills a mitzvah with it, he no longer benefits from it, as stated in Eruvin 30:1 and more, 'Mitzvahs were not given to enjoy' [and in particular, the conclusion of the Gamma (Berachot 10:1) that the obligation of the blessing is explained by the fact that 'it is forbidden for a person to enjoy this world without a blessing']. And according to the opinion of the Rabbi (Nedrim 15:2, 5 and 8), if one enjoys physical pleasure while fulfilling the mitzvah, pleasure is accidental, even if it is not given to enjoy, Iti Shapir has blessed the blessing 'He who brings forth bread from the land' over the matzah. However, according to the Rashba (ibid., where He said), even though in the 23rd century, one's body enjoyed the mitzvah, saying that it was not given to enjoy, why do the 'Hamotzi' blessings be given over the matzah of a mitzvah [and the blessing of 'Adama' upon eating the bittern].

And I wrote to the rabbi to understand that the words of the Rashba are not stated in the rabbi's book, except when the person's act is an "act of a mitzvah," because the mitzvah "requires" a specific act, such as "baptism," which is an "act of a mitzvah." Therefore, since this act is said as interpreted "for a burden," it deprives him of the pleasure he has from the "pleasure of the body" of the mitzvah. Which is not the case, if the act of the mitzvah is not special and specific to the act of his mitzvah, but rather that the same act is both for his mitzvah and for his pleasure, in 23 the halakha of the mitzvahs being given to the saints was not stated. And this is a wonderful principle.
And since the act of eating matzah for its mitzvah is the act of eating for its pleasure, it is self-evident to the Pemaschnet that everyone admits that the act of eating for its mitzvah does not invalidate the "pleasure" of eating and enjoying it.
I would be happy to know the level of the esteemed Maran Gaon HaGadol Shlita.

3] The reward of the sycamores in the seventh: In the rabbinic tradition (B.M. 15), Abaye and Rava differed, whether the one who receives a field from his fellow receives the reward of the sycamores, that is, the trees that he has blessed. And I have a baraita: The one who takes a field from his fellow and the jubilee comes, he is called, and the birka and silkka, silkka and birka in the jubilee of the fakir [and so there is no reason for the recipient to claim them from the owner of the field], but it is not the reward of the sycamores. And the rabbinic tradition rejects: They are the ones who are above the law and the jubilee is afqa'ta demalka. And in the rabbinic tradition (Shab'it 7:10) it is discussed, whether it is appropriate that there should be grain in the jubilee that does not involve the prohibition of sfichin, according to the Rabbis who believe that sfichin are prohibited from the rabbinic tradition, in such a way that the grain brought a third between the year of the Lord and the year of the Lord, according to the Rabbis, the jubilee only fell on the year of the Lord, and therefore this grain is not non-sfichin of the seventh. And not the jubilee additions. And the comment there, Delf"7, the Gm could find a 12th, in the praise of grain and legumes that brought a third before the Jubilee. And it was written there, that it is possible that grain is not common in this illustration, and that is why the Gm did not bring this way. And again, he brought to the fore, that the Gm could put a birka and a silka in the 23rd. And it should be noted, that the Rambam (P"4, Mahalal Shm"i 56) wrote, that the seventh additions are forbidden in the eighth until Hanukkah, or until something similar is done in them. And so even if the law of the jubilee does not apply to the greena, they will remain forbidden since they grew in the seventh before the Jubilee, and from May 34, the praise of the greena goes to the recipient.

4] Prayer for a tree that will bear fruit on the seventh day, in Yerushalmi (Shevi'it 4:4) it says about the work of the tree on the seventh day: A tree that bears fruit, they paint it red and cover it with stones, etc. And in Tractate Shabbat (67:1) it says: A tree that bears fruit, they cover it with red and cover it with stones. In Shlomo, they cover it with stones because it is fat and strong, its fruits are falling – Rashi, but they cover it with red because it is not a remedy for a disease. And from the second: Because it is a female breast, and my womb is poured on it [and a sign to my servants to him that they may know the fruit of its fruit – Rashi], so. And in Yerushalmi (ibid.) Frich, what is the reason why one should not prepare a segula in a fig tree [that does not bear fruit]? How does one do this? He brings a branch from a fig tree that bears fruit, writes a note, hangs it on it, and says to it, "This branch bears fruit, and you are a fig tree that does not bear fruit." And Frich, is it permissible to paint the tree red so that it bears fruit? Is it permissible to paint the tree red so that it bears fruit? Is it permissible to paint the tree red so that it bears fruit? Secondly, if the tree already bears fruit, it is permissible to do something that will not cause it to bear fruit, but to hang a segula on a tree so that it bears fruit is prohibited. This means that it is forbidden to consult the sikra so that people pray that the tree will be healthy and bear fruit. This is similar to what Yerushalmi said that it is forbidden to hang a segula so that the tree bears fruit. And it seems that the reason for this is that an act is done to make the tree beautiful, faded like the branches of a tree and forbidden. And 33, why is it forbidden to perform an act of praying over the tree to make it bear fruit, since what causes the fruit to grow is the prayer and not the worship of the tree, and it is forbidden to cause the tree to be prayed over on the seventh day. [See Derech Emunah (Faith, Shemitah and Yuval 57:62)].

His student, through his writings and lessons,