In the Shoah Jud C. X 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest. And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion, a gift is forbidden...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the Shoa Jud C. X. 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest.
And even if it was normal up until now, this is in the Shekh Skat.

And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion a large gift is prohibited in the stama and not in terms of relinquishment, but if not in his opinion it is also prohibited in a small gift and in the matter of renunciation, and what the Shach mentioned there his house and his slaves a "F in Sogi' it is explained that it is a matter of renunciation, MM it should be said that they were mentioned because it is forbidden there because it is in the parhasiya in the Shoah, as here in a gift from his mind.

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

In RMA C. K. S. S. I. Dev interprets that it is for the loan or a large gift even just is prohibited, and in the case of a small gift that is not interpreted as being because of the loan it is allowed, but when he knows in his heart that he is giving the gift because of the loan there is a problem with this even with a small gift...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In Rama C. X. S. S. I. Dev interprets that it is for the loan or a large gift even just is prohibited, and in the case of a small gift that is not interpreted as being because of the loan it is permissible, but when he knows in his heart that he is giving the gift because of the loan there is a problem with this even with a small gift in the stama, and Ibid. In the Shach SKI Daduka is close to the loan, but not in excess of the loan, then a multiple gift in disguise would be permissible, and he added that if he was not used to giving a gift before then it would also be forbidden in disguise (perhaps Damiri is close to the loan and sla'a in the sources he brought there), And concluded that everything depends on the matter, if it is evident that what he does because of the loan is forbidden in any way, and in the 16th century, the person sentenced for the matter will be satisfied with a small gift when in his heart he does so because of the loan in the dispute of the arbitrators.

!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

On the one hand, it was appropriate to bring a little to every poor person on occasion, as the elders of Israel used to do, and in this he fulfills the words of the Rambam who wrote to do so to the kof who created a lot of charity, and on the other hand, it is better for the collector of charity since they said that he should not give to the Koshet unless he is appointed to it...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

On the one hand, it was appropriate to bring a little to every poor person on occasion, as the great men of Israel used to do, and in this he fulfills the words of the Rambam who wrote to do so for the kof who created a lot of charity, and on the other hand, it is better for a charity collector since they said that he should not give to the Koshet unless he is appointed as Rabbi Ben Theridion , while in the collections there are also unfair ones like the Mash in the inscriptions and A. in the SPAK DBAK, and in particular if his relatives are poor that if he gives to them he will live up to it and your tidings do not be ignored.

And in fact it seems that there is a practice mentioned in the aforementioned Rambam to give a little to every poor person, but in such a way that there is a limited amount and cannot give more due to his poverty, it is better to give to faithful collectors or to the poor who check him, since he says let me check him as Mash 22 9 in Yerushalmi Sof Paa and in Rambam 17 of the 11th of the 56th and Shu'a, and also means there according to the reasons a drub what is not necessary for food such as housing needs, etc., needs an examination, and apparently medical needs are judged as a need for food, vei Q. The details of the laws, and only in gifts to the evangelists of Purim Kiel, the one who extends his hand is given to him, and therefore since it is condemned here to give to the poor who are not tested at the expense of the tested poor, it is generally appropriate to give to the testators everything that the poor who are not tested are witnesses to the tested in other matters.

And it is possible to say the main point of Rambam's words regarding giving alms little by little to the poor who are checked by him, and in this it is certainly better to give them little by little than to give everything at once to the collector, but there is a reason to say that Rambam is miri in this afi' in that they are not checked except that it is not at the expense of the tithe Money such as he has in his hand to add and the main rule of law for the poor in Dokin is law for a collector.

And from the OT to give all his alms to his relative as in the Garchak, and rather I in the GAM that he should not give all his gifts to one priest, and there are also the aforementioned words of the Rambam that I brought at the beginning of the answer, but if he gives to a fund of charity it is not It is considered one poor person that the collector distributes to every poor person who consumes and the collector can bring to him.

And from M.M. it should be noted that the faithful are poor and he has charity. There is a concern here that he will not be late, so he will make a condition that the entire tithe will not be applied to him there tikkah until he comes to the poor as a mash on the way of Emunah HL from Tan'a PF8 SKAH.

And of course one must give a gift of all one's wealth to the poor who return, because the one who returns to you will be destroyed, according to Rambam 16 of the 17th Psalm, and this usually does not depend on the total amount to which charity it will go.
And in this he also somewhat fulfills the Rambam's words above to give charity little by little.

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

Sweets are of course allowed, and Peres has an interest in saying explicitly that the kaniin will not apply on Shabbat, but from the main point of the law there is a reason to allow it even without it if it is consumed for the child to learn, since it is for the purpose of a mitzvah. The wording of the gift will not be that the gift will apply after Shabbat...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Sweets are of course allowed, and Peres has an interest in saying explicitly that the kaniin will not apply on Shabbat, but from the main point of the law there is a reason to allow it even without it if it is consumed for the child to learn, since it is for the purpose of a mitzvah.

The wording of the gift will not be that the property will apply after Shabbat but that the property will not apply now.

Sources: regarding food, see Shaq, and regarding a gift and the need for a mitzvah, see Shu SC, and regarding a small study if it is considered a mitzvah, see the above-mentioned section in the Shu'a, and regarding the advice not to merit, see Rabbi Asad Okh Peg.
Regarding the wording according to the contract, you will record a document.

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