Since the heirs do not give permission to live there, therefore it is forbidden to live there, and even any use for which rent would not be paid (i.e., a man from a servant to a migrant) is prohibited by law, this dedin is enjoyed and it is not lacking. It is not said about coercion, that as long as he has something...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Since the heirs do not give permission to live there, therefore it is forbidden to live there, and even any use for which he would not pay rent (i.e., a freeholder from a servant to a migrant) is prohibited by law, this dedin is enjoyed and it is not lacking. It is for money and he is not renting it out for reasons of convenience, aa he is obliged to give it for free because of a coercion on the level of Sodom since even in payment he does not want to give the apartment, and as explained in 27 of the Rama'a Hom C. Shaseg Sou.

And I will not say, except that it is convenient for him to broadcast it in his house (Sam'a, Ibid., 25, according to Hagm', B.K. 21:11), but when he stands and shouts, "I have no choice."

And if a person has already lived there retroactively without permission, and the heirs come to ask for payment for it, and he claims that he does not want to pay because due to the relationship between the heirs it was not possible for them to rent the apartment to anyone, and they claim that they would like to but they cannot, but if someone already comes to live there They ask for the rent.

There was room for sidestepping in this way that since, if it were possible for each of the heirs separately to rent the apartment under the conditions suitable to him, he would rent it out, therefore if a person used a stipulation as existing to Agra, since Delanin owed a stipulation as existent to Agra, and so on.

And in the Rama'a there is a dam road to rent it, except that now I will not work for Migr Bater Shta Azlinan, but there is no evidence from there for our matter, Dish to say Dharmama does not rent it except in such a way that he really has no point and need and desire and interest to rent it now and KML Despite the fact that most of the time he does court tenants, from now on since that's how he considers himself not a slave to a migrant.

And maybe there was a place to hang things in the first dispute regarding the matter of a permanent courtyard for Agra, but the 72 is not here, Dalharabi (quoted in the OZ C. Kakad) considered it a non-sustainable courtyard for Agra, and the OZ put a part on it, and so did the Maharshall [yes] Q. B. K. P. B. SS.

And yet for the majority of the judges who think that a yard whose owners are not in front of us for rent is considered a sustainable yard for Agra because if he could rent it, it is possible here since if they could they would rent it out it is considered sustainable for Agra, and there is some room to divide this between an external situation that interferes To maintain the lease and the actual situation of the authority and power of the apartment at the moment.

And after thinking about it, it seems that there is no need to discuss this matter, nor is it necessary to bring imagination to say that this apartment is considered sustainable for Agra at all, since even if it is not considered sustainable for Agra, all the condemned who enjoys it and this is not lacking is in a way that he enjoys it, it turns out that there is no rabbi who is careful about it, But in the way that he was told in the 19th century, he left and did not come out, not only is he not allowed to donate there as above in the name of the Rama, but he also has to pay if he continues to donate there according to the Shu'a C. that closed section 6, and we were a C Damiri in an unsustainable yard for Agra, in the SMA and in the Bihagra.
(And I.S. in the issue of Maharash Eiger what was discussed by the PZ regarding the intention of the Rama there later in the section on issued by B.A.B.

And we can also add that since it is explained in the Sama according to the arbitrators that this law is enjoyed and it is not lacking, it is a law based on an estimate on the part of Umadana that it does not interfere with the Bhab, and anything that the Bhab is not comfortable with is not this law at all, so that is the law in the way that is clear to us Shevab did not allow her to do so, and therefore as it is known and clear that Shevab does not agree, it is forbidden to enter Dor Shem, and the Lord who transmits Shem will have to pay.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The majority of the judges agree that such a vagrancy is not the vagrancy and does not apply at all, although it is not clear to the Supreme Court that such a vagrancy does not apply, and there are also other cases to be attached here, so it cannot be taken out of his hands since he has several matters that he can claim and rely on. Sources: ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The majority of the judges agree that such a vagrancy is not the vagrancy and does not apply at all, although it is not clear to the Supreme Court that such a vagrancy does not apply, and there are also other cases to be attached here, so it cannot be taken out of his hands since he has several matters that he can claim and rely on.

Sources: In the Mishna Pafa and A. I. the paqar for the poor of Beit Hillel is not the paqar until it is also paqar for the rich, and the simplicity is that he is not the paqar and nothing applies, and also in Gm. And so the eloquence of the judges, and so on in the Rash on the Mishnah there that if a poor person came before and was successful and did nothing, and it was brought in the Sma'a and well well C. Reg. And by way of faith PV Datromoth brought the words of the Sma'a and added that the winner is usurpation in his hands.

And the words of the Levite are known from the DK AHA C. Net, which he extended in that there is no property in the manner of the freedman who is not a rabbi.

However, this law is a tzak because a demokha milta wants to transfer his ownership after a tak to something that he can't in any way, and while it is true that the owner's right will not be for this, but why not have a gift in it.

And in truth, in some of the interpretations of the Mishnah in Paa, there means that it is not the pakar for the purpose of Paa, and not that there is no giving or forgiveness in the world at all, Yaoish in their tongues.

And also see in the way of faith PB from Tarumot Skafo according to the Radbaz there Damboar that when the foreigner gave, he gave it to the poor for the poor and the law of a gift applies, and perhaps it should be divided between usurpation from Israel and usurpation from a Gentile that the fence of the usurpation from a Gentile has other fences in it, or so Damokha Milta He who said that he is like a pah of Israel, we have to compare him to a pah in any way that can apply in a way that is close to a pah, and so it is a gift, but the language is strict that he is the poor man's for the poor and therefore must tithe more than the meaning of the Radbaz opinion that the poor man's poor man is not the poor man's only for the sake of a pah.

And Yaoi' in Shu'at Ong Yot C. Tsa who wrote in his words and in any case also what the Levite, according to his way of charity, admits the Rabbi Damanhi that the tax collector did not benefit from the Torah of the prodigal because he was not present and in their eyes that he would be a prodigal for all this is not Danhi dela hoi the pakar, if the pakar is for the poor, the tax collector won a gift because he gave it to the poor, and the law of the pakar does not belong here at all, and all the words of the Levites about this do not make sense to me, and it means that the pakar is not here, but there is a gift Here, and perhaps he is a special judge in charity.

However, even if it is interpreted that there is property here that is not a gift and yet is liable for tithes, it still does not settle at all, and yet it should also have been disposed of from tithes that are exempt from tithes, not in the name of the pakar and in the Torah of the pakar at all. He does not have a share and an inheritance with you, the poor person who has a share in it, and therefore everything that has a share in the poor person, whether it is the state of the free person or whether it is the state of forgiveness or a gift, will be exempt from tithes.
And after all, for the sake of this opinion in Yerushalmi, there is no deserter for a heathen or for an animal.

And it is also proven in the rabbinate that the hand of everything is used in it and you say you will be obligated to pay tithes, and it was assumed in the manner explained there that you will hang it in the flag because there are ways and opinions that there is no permission to do it, but in the way that there is permission to do it, it will have to be the law that gets rid of the tithe There, and why would there be a hanging in the name of the nomad.

And PA ordered the Rabbi Lubin regarding a certain legal matter that does not have an exemption from tithing because if they do not pay it at the end it will not have the name of the pakar [this is about something that if they collect it only in the eighth year it will become clear in retrospect that it does not contain the Holy One and is not the pakar] God forbid It is exempt from tithing, and I made it difficult for the above-mentioned Sabra Duba Halevy, etc., DSOS because it has permission to take it, it has a complete exemption since everything was included in it, and I heard that he retracted his instruction because of this.

And perhaps it should be settled on the difficulty' in the Nidd a deptor share and inheritance with you is only in such a way that everyone has a share and inheritance with you, and in any case, everything that is not a pauper for everyone is not exempt from tithing, but it is not less than that, but from other studies as explained in the interpretations.

And Yeo'i in the clothing of Mordechai in the BMC 2 who extended Toba on this matter and did not want to interpret that there is no forgiveness for the object, Yao'sh according to his own way, and Yao' that Toba was repressed in the words of the Gam' in the BM there, and one must add to his words Dahan although the sabra That there is no provision here needs clarification, but also to interpret the words of the Gem' as a very narrow interpretation, and I would have insisted that there was room to press in a different way. Ishmael, etc., and it is possible to interpret in the words of the Gam. Delmaskana, Rabbi Ishmael does not rule against the law of the poor at all, but only from the law of forgiveness or a gift, and what about the obligation of the Gam, did the Gam believe that nothing applies. But the most unsustainable conclusion.

And from the fact of the matter AA to move from the ruling of the majority of the arbitrators and Sugein Delma that the non-exemption does not apply at all.

And M.M. must be discussed for another reason, since there are opinions in the scribes [Sh. Ch. Hom. Shanah 1] that if one takes something of his friend in a certain way, he will be willing when he takes it, it is not robbery, however, the Kzachh there part 17.

Likewise, in our case, it is necessary to discuss on a different basis the manner in which the desertion to the person before us, according to the Navov Taninya Yod C. Kand, the desertion applies, however the Hatas Yod Shiz disagrees with it, as well as in Tash'' RA Gordon HB C. A.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If there is actual supervision of the soul, he can enter the house and does not have to pay any extra charge in a normal case, and he must be careful not to ravish his eyes from the house, for which he does not have permission, and in a place where accommodation costs money, such as a cafe where accommodation is paid for, as well as if the rabbi asks for blood. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אם יש פיקוח נפש ממשי יכול להיכנס לבית ואינו צריך לשלם עכ"פ במקרה רגיל, ויזהר שלא לזון עיניו מן הבית, שעל זה אין לו רשות, ובמקום שעולה כסף שהות, כגון בית קפה שמשלמים על שהות, וכן אם בעה"ב מבקש דמים סבירים כשוי ההנאה צריך לשלם לו, אבל אם אין ידוע לו שבעה"ב מבקש א"צ לחשוש לזה.
And in the sources there are more details on this.

Sources: According to the KIL halacha, it is permissible to save himself with his friend's money if the survivor pays his friend who owns the money for his loss [Hom Shant 4 and Shem Shaf 3], therefore if there is a real fear of PKON here, too, it would be permissible to save himself by entering the house His friend, and even though he is using his house and there is evidential damage from it, he will still be allowed to enter, unless we find that they have divided between damage and damage which is explained in the rulings that it is permissible to damage his friend for the purpose of saving himself only and he will pay him later "B and Tor HOM Shant].

But in our case, since the person who afterwards returns the object in its entirety, apparently in a normal case, will not even have to pay, since here it is a permanent court for the Agra, and as for the fact that there are only permanent houses for the Idna for the Agra [RAMA Homum Shasg 6] but not in such a way as to hide in a house for a few minutes, unless otherwise known.

אבל אם הוה קאי לאגרא אין לטעון דמעיקרא בתורת גזילה אתא לידיה, שהגזילה הותרה לו לצורך פקו"נ ולא יצטרך לשלם, אין לטעון כן, דבתוס' ב"ק ריש דף צז מבואר בלאו הכי דבקרקע לא אמרי' סברא זו ורק במטלטלין וכן מבואר בשו"ע סי' שסג החילוק בין קרקע למטלטלין, ואמנם ברמ"א שם ס"ו מבואר דבגזילת קרקע כשבא להשיב הקרקע אינו חייב לשלם מלבד הקרקע ולא שכר בטלתה, היינו רק אם לא נהנה ממנו כמבואר בבהגר"א שם, והנגזל תובע דמי ביטול הקרקע שהיה יכול להשכיר בינתיים, אבל אם נהנה מן הקרקע משלם עליו הנאתו בדקיימא לאגרא.

ויש לציין דדעת כמה ראשונים שאפי' קלב"מ שפטור בנזיקין חייב בשכירות [ר"ת בספר הישר מובא במאירי בב"ק ובראב"ד ורשב"א בב"מ], ויהיה קצת דחוק לומר דקלב"מ חייב בשכירות ופטור בנזיקין ומציל עצמו בממון חבירו יהיה חייב בנזיקין ופטור משכירות, וכן מבואר בסוגי' דלהלן בדין משטה וכו', שאפשר לבקש דמי שכירות, וממילא גם בקיימא לאגרא משמע בפשוטו שיצטרך לשלם.

And regarding what is here, evidentiary damage does not belong to tashmin Efi' If damage is caused by the evil eye, there is no compensation in the evil eye in human law, since it is damage that is not apparent and was not intentional, nor can it be made liable under the laws of heaven, since there is no proven damage, and it is appropriate to appease him in this, and is also made liable when it is found Namely not to look anywhere in the house since the law of damage to evidence includes the law of not looking even when one can actually look, and as explained in the RMA in the Kand Sof sg.
And it is true that there is a law in the years that the official who came out in the laws of heaven to pay to both of them in the ways explained in the C.S.
And the Nidd belongs to C. Ea SI by saying I don't know if you robbed you and there is no plaintiff's claim against him, there is no obligation to leave by the hand of Heaven (and it is possible that the plaintiff's claim against the evil eye does not belong, if he claims that you stole with the evil eye, unless he tells me that such and such happened And the wise man said that if his words are true, it must have been caused by the evil eye, and then it is possible that there is a good claim by the plaintiff, and there is still room to discuss the part of the theft that came, that the thief knew that it was necessary to return the money, when he did not feel what he did for about an hour, and it is possible that he was not fined. to come out of heaven, and you have to settle for it).

And then a person will do everything he can to avoid this, since this act is very indecent to enter his friend's house without his permission.

and MMM precisely in such a way that there is a definition of PKON here, such as in a place where people are injured and killed by the bombs, but in places where there is no obvious danger and the local people are not careful to enter a protected space every time or the person fleeing himself at other times is not used to being careful about this, and revealed his opinion that he is not This is according to the Law of Israel (Ea 22 4 12, and 12 Shabbat Kakad 12, and 12 Ketovit 9), and only now that he hears an alarm wants to use this permit to enter his friend's house, not simply to allow such a.

And in the manner of 72 there and telling him that he agrees to enter only if he pays him, apparently he can ask for money, but only as much as this hospitality is worth, and even if he has committed to more he can say Meshte I was with you as explained in Hom Resad, 7.
But in a way that he did not agree with the above-mentioned law.
ואפילו אם לבו נוקפו אם מחוייב לשלם או לא, יש לומר דמ"מ באופן שלא פגש כלל את הבעה"ב ואינו תובע כסף להדיא, א"צ שיהיה לבו נוקפו מספק, כיון דדעת בני אדם אינו לבקש כסף באופן כזה, ודומה למה שנתבאר לדעת הש"ך וכמה פוסקים דבאופן שמסתבר שדרך חבירו למחול א"צ לבקש ממנו להדיא.

And by the way, Orchan Yeavi' in Rama Shaseg 66, Dach, that he enjoys this and it is not lacking Aa Lakof in Bb of Maikara that he will agree since God can rent it out and does not want to, therefore it is not Kofin to do it for free, and there was a place to study in the Nidad Kofin To do it for free, since at best he can use his house, and only the convict if he pays, and therefore since it is unsustainable for Agra and Nidd to use it, he will not be able to ask for it anyway, but this calculation is not correct, of course he can ask for money whenever he wants Then the yard will be changed to a permanent yard for Agra, and all the condemned man will never ask for the money, and only the condemned man if he can be forced to give the yard to be used without money, since the most debauchery does not ask for money, on the part of a prisoner on the level of Sodom, but in a way that asks for money and is allowed to ask Money, there is nothing like Sodom about it.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You have to reply. Sources: He who does not return peace, they said in Barakat 6b that he is a usurper, and a suspect of usurpation is liable for restitution under the laws of Heaven (Hom Shasa 2), and even if for the matter of Tishlimin his law is as a deposit even in a deposit, the judgment in his claim must be issued in the laws of Heaven (Hom S Anything that doesn't...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You have to reply.

Sources: He who does not return peace, they said in Barakat 6b that he is a usurper, and a suspect of usurpation is liable for restitution under the laws of Heaven (Hom Shasa 2), and even if for the matter of Tishlimin his law is as a deposit even in a deposit, the judgment in his claim must be issued in the laws of Heaven (Hom S As long as there was no crime on the part of the depositor, and even if he spoke as a doubt about money that does not belong to the person who takes it out, the proof is on him since nothing is taken out of it, and also in other doubts when it is possible to fix it easily, they are not lenient, and I also heard from the Gramm Karp that here it is a prohibition against us and not an obligation towards his friend And it does not belong to the one who brings out evidence about him.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen