In the adjacent answers, I extended some details concerning this law in the roots of the laws, each individually, and in this I will write a summary of the things:
Regarding the matter under discussion, whether she ruled according to the Rama'a in this, indeed she ruled according to the Rama'a in this, and regarding whether she can argue Kim Li as disputing the Rama'a, in the NIDD it does not appear that she can claim so and as explained.
As for the issue at hand, if she is forced to discuss his father's city, the simplicity of the rulings is that there is coercion in this, and as the Sunnah.
As for if he wants to discuss his father's city in another B.D., there is no compulsion, but ZBLA, and according to the owner of the contributions (which may be the custom today, as he says, it is simply claimed that Afi' ZBLA does not exist) apparently it turns out that Afi' ZBLA is not here, but a different one is prepared The defendant completely.
If you want to discuss a nearby city where going there by taxi is reasonable as a human way, as a routine thing that is no more tiring than walking in an average city, there is room for the side.
In the event that she agrees to discuss only in another city that is considered disobedient to the law, regarding the level of refusal in this regard, the special answer for this consideration will be included, and in the way that here there are other additions to be added here (namely, the addition of the OT for the case of a father claimant, and the addition of the Ameri Yisher for the case of coercion in the Nidd, And in the combination of the mountains in the sky that in every doubt Hadar Dina and Azli' in the defendant's case, and I. in Rama 3. So in the matter of some sages that 11 says on another account), there is more room to hang light on the places where more reasons should be attached to the matter.
And I will ask that they not trust me as a halachic in all that I have not now tortured the things except from Kofia.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 2591