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

It is forbidden to use it because of the act of Shabbat, even though the garment would have been worn even without the smell.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is forbidden to use it because of the act of Shabbat, even though the garment would have been worn even without the smell. to allow.

And also if he wore the garment even without the smell and when the wearer intends not to smell (and they do not bring before other people who will smell the garment) there is room for permission.

Sources: Yeavi' in the Rama'a Rasg sah that if the food was eaten because of its warmth and heated in the prohibition, it is not forbidden because of the act of Shabbat.
and the 8th of the Mishnab where even one who enjoyed the heating is allowed retroactively because he could have eaten even without the heating, and so on Ravn Skal regarding a foreigner who slipped his shoes on Shabbat, as well as in S. Reo SKK2 that if the foreigner lit a second candle it is permissible since it was in the can use the first candle, and the difficulty in Shona Shaqz 3 that the Mashnab Shaqz Sktaz 27 for a foreigner who shines his shoes on Shabbat is forbidden to enjoy them even though God can enjoy them even without the shine, and I. M. Shik in Sh. Shik P.L. Note They stood up in the name of the Gershaza and in Menchat Shlomo from the Dovat C. 241. More on this matter.

etc. in the AGM Yod 13 Mazb that an air conditioner is not like an additional candle even if it were there even without the air conditioner, since the enjoyment of the air conditioner is a new enjoyment that is not included in the enjoyment of the actual stay, and a model should be added regarding heating, which the RMA did not allow And in the manner in which the food was completely cold, even if it says that it was eaten cold, it is not except in the manner in which it was warm to the degree of heat that would have been eaten at least because of the heat itself, that is, to the degree of heat that would have been eaten to enjoy the heating, but when it was cold it was not eaten because of the warmth, duff He would have eaten it because he eats food, but then he wouldn't have enjoyed the warmth at all, and the definition of eaten because of warmth is that it was appropriate to choose this food to eat only because of its warmth, and that in practice when eating it he feels the pleasure of warmth to the extent that he deserves to eat it because of this warmth.

And as we stated in the lesson of food that has not become completely cold, it is permissible for the Rama to return it, i.e. anything that is not eaten because of its warmth according to the Garaz, even if he says that he would have eaten it at the very least, it is not permissible for him to return it, since it has become completely cold, the definition is that he chooses to eat this food because of its warmth, Also, almost all the arbitrators agreed with the GRMP's definition regarding the air conditioner, i.e. in the composition of the rest of the members of the GRIM Morgenstern, and also the Grail ordered his meeting in Karmiel even in times of great pressure.

Also, the Garach (Book of Answers to the Garach) ordered that it is forbidden to pray in a place where there is electricity, which is not kosher on Shabbat, and we were even though he does not use the Siddur, and we were everything that the Mishnav permitted in a second candle is only in a candle that was already there so that nothing new was created, but if there was not A candle, even though he claims that he would have arrived there even without the candle, it is not permissible for him because he enjoyed a new thing that was not there without the act of Shabbat, and also for our purposes if the smell created a new thing that was not there before, it is forbidden, and even Dai' in Biahal Rish C. That he would not have done without a candle is forbidden, that is, it is possible that he would sit and come to a foreigner and light a candle there, as a proof that he does not need to light a candle at all, but in the way that he came there 111 if it was at all permissible, and he was allowed to study and eat there, and to study we would Even though one does not directly use the light of the candle, as just a form of learning on Shabbat, and also to eat, even though the pleasure is secondary, it is forbidden since there is a new pleasure here that comes because of the light that one enjoys, and the way that the Behal permitted when he came to do something that he would have done even without the candle, and not A candle was needed.

And it is also possible to say that the foreigner lit a candle in his house where he is a resident, what will he do with it, and it is reproved that he is there in any way but dafi', there it is forbidden if he does something that he would not have done because of the candle, and it should also be noted according to the words of Ha'i'a Sab Sofs s. And we took a simile taken by the Rivash (which is the source of the Bahl there) Shafi' to study or eat was forbidden, we would say to Rabuta Dava to Ashmai' Shafi' during the study it is known that the body enjoys more, and in the PZ any pleasure that comes from the candle in such a way that the pleasure is directly from the candle and the candle It is a new pleasure that is forbidden, and only in a way that does not enjoy the candle at all, such as when coming to sleep is permitted, and according to the Mishnav, although the mere delay is permitted, but whenever he comes to look at the thing by the light of the lighted candle in a way that he enjoys it, it is forbidden, and also for the matter of smelling such a garment or wearing it in such a way Let others smell and enjoy their smell.
In fact, according to our point of view, there is reason to say that if one actually wears the garment and is careful not to smell its smell (since intending to smell its smell is forbidden) it will be permissible.

And even though there is the way that the Mishnav made it easy on the matter of repairing shoes and wrote the Gershza because it is only a prohibition of durbanan, and for our purposes, regardless of the fact that the prohibition is durbanan, but a new thing is created here, and there is also no prohibition, VILA, and regardless of the fact that the smell is something that does not exist In the literal MM, the judges took the view that nothing that is not in it is forbidden in the act of Shabbat, as the PMG Ranev sided with MM 7 regarding the voice that we judged as a sight that is forbidden on Shabbat when reading a candle, and so in the 16th it is necessary to add that God is a smell that judges them again , as well as regarding what was recorded on Shabbat that all the passims took to the Esenar, see Manchai HA Raz 3, Har Tzvi HA Kfag, Arhot Shabbat 13 Kah Comment Tza in the name of the Garshaza, Khot 2 HB 22 SKA p. 'Mo letter b.
And regarding the matter if there was already a scent in the garment and you want to add it to it even though it is forbidden to do so according to the Mishnav, you will throw up about 100 mm from the definition of the Shabbat act for the Tamashnat if there was a scent in the garment that had pleasure in it before and added a scent to the garment, it will be permissible to wear it.
And it should be noted that I wrote that if the smell does not work in the garment but only gives off a bad smell, it is not a Shabbat act. It should be noted that some rulings even in the first place do not have a prohibition in it. Transferring a smell does not have a Shabbat prohibition. Yaoi' the question of Yab'tz 11 Mb and Arhot Shabbat 11 Pet'u note 10 in the name of the Garnak, however Yaoi' Shlohan Shlomo C. will throw up in the margin of the sheet letter 16, and who is also the one who permits there regarding water, perhaps it should be divided between water A garment, for example a garment that is intended to be worn and used directly, has the correction of a garment with a smell and is not only born according to the Mab Tharankh 7, and in any case for the purpose of transmitting a smell it is possible to correct it, but gradually in such a way that the smell was only removed and it would have been worn at least, it is permissible, and for the purpose of correcting a mana It should not be allowed apparently what was worn without it, p.

!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