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.
וידועים דברי הנוב"י מהד"ק אה"ע סי נט שהאריך בזה שאין שום קנין באופן של הפקר שאינו לכו"ע, וכן בראב"ד דעדויות פ"ד בשם הרמב"ן מבואר להדיא דאינו הפקר כלל עי"ש.
.
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.
(ולגוף הנידון יש לציין גם לדברי הגמ' בר"ה דף יד יד הכל ממשמשין וכו' ואת אמרת וכו').
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.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 3745 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/3745
