There is a dispute in this, and the refutation of the words of the arbitrators that Kofin is in this and so it seems to Betharei.
Sources: I. In the answer of Amri Yosher HC C. Leh that the son is not compelled to discuss the city of the father, as long as the son agrees to discuss the city of the son, this is already the law of respect for the father that there is no compulsion on this, and in the tribe of Levi 7 C. Kia was confused about him and Sal Dakhion that this is the law of respect, a father of mine for the law of the case that he is obliged to come to the court in his father's city, in any case he was compelled by law to come to the court that he is obligated to, and wrote a declaration meaning that the arbitrators end up in the foreign country there and the Maharik Noah's root
And the intention of the Sheba'l does mean that this law is closed with the rest of the laws that were clarified there on the matter of who goes to the place of the Bd, and just as in the other laws, so is Kofin in this one, and it should be further clarified in this that the main law of coercion is on what is here of money suspected of embezzlement, And the coercion is not on the law in practice, but rather the law is the form of inquiry required to ascertain this money, and the form of inquiry varies according to the conditions of the matter here.
And in the body of the Mishka of the Shebal, it does mean Mahrik, seemingly in Mahrik where it means Ifka Dahari the Mahrik, it seems to him that his mother was a citizen with one of the markets whose son was obligated to go to the legal assistant, and that KSH is obligated to come to her place To discuss with her, and after all, in this manner of one of the market there is certainly no Bd Kofin on her, and it must be said that the Maharik for the well-being of Damilta Kamer, while the main point of the Levi tribe's accuracy may be from warnings and the derivation of a snake in the continuation of the Maharik's answer That.
And in the rai' body of the Levi tribe, the judges end, and if his intention, from what they resembled, is the other laws of "following after" that are explained in C. Yad Bhom, it should be argued against this apparently that they forget to walk after the father, which we do not find in the MKO'A that the father pays the son's expenses, 1. It is a rule that there is no division in other matters, and the intention of the Sheba'l is that simplicity.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 2590 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/2590
