Exemption for many reasons, even though there are those who require it, and the Chazoa also took an exemption.
In Gm BK Leh it apparently means that there is no difference in the matter, because the Lord said there Gabi Amed and allowed the money to be paid to Israel, where later on in the sermon that Afi preaches them, they do not receive a reward for them unless it is not a mitzvah and does, and this is said there regarding the sermon of Amed and allowed the money to be paid to Israel , and this means that this law of the permitted person is also a Gentile who fulfills the 7th commandment of the sons of Noah.
And Yaoi' further in Ritba Makhot 9 11a which is explained by Hadiya in his words Damshak in Sogein Shafi' from Kayimin etc. Meiri Begar Toshav, and also explained in a happy light in Hal' Isuri Biya Pid 77.
Likewise, a second piece of evidence must be cited from the Yoma here, a.a. Dai', where the person who is a gentile doubter, a doubter of Israel, who has gored an ox belonging to Israel, the Israelite is exempt because the one issuing the evidence is against him, and apparently, if he does not fulfill a mitzvot, then by no means even if he is an Israelite is exempt from paying If they gored his ox, Damshomed is not better than a Gentile for this matter, (and there is an opinion in the Rama that even harming him with the hands is permissible and the last MMs did not apply that to the Halacha, Dilma Nefki Minya, etc. in the B.K. And if they forget that the unmarried are taken down and the gentiles are not taken down) I am sure that Miri is fulfilling a mitzvah and yet because he is a supplier of a gentile, he is exempt from paying him.
And there was a place to reject and say dain rai'a from there, dish to say Demeiri in a small way that in this he should be paid even if he does not fulfill a mitzvah, since the beginning of the issue there is in doubt created by the fact that he was a discarded baby, etc.
However, instead of rejecting this rejection, Dehari Meiri also mentions in this account personally the matter of the doubter's bull that was gored by Israel's bull, and by the same token, Meiri is also in a big way, since a small person is exempt from payments for damages to his bull.
And urges to say that it is worth it, and it is worth it', that is, the bull of Israel that gored a bull of a doubt, but the doubt is only small, and the bull of a doubt, that gored a bull of Israel, says that the doubt is great, and of course there is a great urge to state yes.
Likewise, a third proof should be cited for this, Dahana means that Rambam's conclusion (Hell. Nazki mamon 58 55) and Shu'a (Hom C. 10) means that all the Gentiles of the Law do not share their part in this.
It should also be said that there is a fourth rai' in this from what the Rambam put a sleep on behalf of the GAM, and the AIS in the LHM that changed on behalf of the GAM or that it is included in the taste, etc. Reasons for reasons brought up in the GM, and like MS the Toss and the first ones in many places also in the GM did not make sure to bring studies from the readings to the Dinim even when in the sogyin dalma it is explained that the study is from another place for the conclusion.
Moreover, the fact that he did not take care to bring the opinion of the High Court apparently means that he believed that there is no law that follows the Halacha from the reason brought forward in the High Court.
It should also be said, apparently, another fifth point in this, Dahari Din as a kind of dina dagoi, icha dina dahkadesh yaoi' in B.C. Goy's bull.
However, this claim is not true, according to the conclusion of the High Court on page 10, 11, 14, "Reho" if it is not specifically said that only a Gentile, as the Maharsha, there, in any case, there is no evidence to condemn Didan from the writings of Reho.
But there is still room to argue a little, and we can learn from the conclusion, that according to the Hoa, he was a party to it, and from that, a Gentile was reduced. From this point of view, see, this is what was learned in the light of the conclusion of the High School, which is something that depends on the fulfillment of the mitzvot Bnei Noach, according to the High School, and was brought up briefly above (and according to what I wrote above, according to the calculation on behalf of the High School, it comes out as we said, but If there is no reason to say, on the other hand, Gisa Damshak in Gm' Efi' Makayimin RL in a Gentile who does not observe and once exists a davaza, it will not be considered as charity for him, nor in a Hasid of the United Nations who has accepted that he must fulfill the obligations that he has, according to some of the opinions, he lives a resident In B.C. Lech 11, the model of Israel who has lifted the burden of a mitzvah does not receive a reward for his mitzvahs as a mitzvah and does it, and according to the account here we find Dabgoi Afi' accepting the mitzvahs which he is bound by and upholds their law as it is not a mitzvah and does it).
And I looked further into the interpretation of the Hag'm's words to the conclusion there and I found that the first ones were divided on whether the conclusion was precisely his fellow or not precisely, Darbino broke from a commentary like the Maharsha, while our Rabbi Yonatan (Bashtamak) and the Nemuki Yosef interpreted the judgment regarding a gentile ox that gored an Israeli ox, but A bull of Israel that gores a bull of a gentile, a pashita deftor, this delanin is indeed his mate, and it also means in the Toss Minachot sez 1a 4h Had, and so on in the Marsheal on the words of the Toss in the bak there (Dala as the Maharsha), And I. in Tos. Reka on the Mishniyot there.
Therefore, everything that is judged, whether there is a rai' or not, is only according to Shi' Rabbi Peretz and the Maharsha, but according to many of the commentators, it is less than the conclusion that a bull of Israel that gores a bull of the sanctuary is also in the conclusion that a Gentile who observes a commandment that falls short of this is not his neighbor.
It is true that I saw in the reprinted book of the key book on the Rambam there (and in the book of the key book an old print is not) in the name of Merkavat Mishnah that he learned from the Rambam.
And although the book Merkavat Mishnah is not in front of me now, but it should be looked at, apparently, on the other hand, it will be on behalf of the Rambam, Gopa Rai', that according to us, the obligation to observe laws in Gentiles by virtue of the 7th Mitzvot does not specifically discuss the laws of Israel, and here the Rambam, there 20, is the reason to exempt Shor of Israel goring a Gentile's ox because they are exempt in their laws, and we do not oblige Israel to pay to the Gentile what was exempt in the Gentile's laws, and here is a Gentile who fulfills 7 mitzvot is not one of the obligees that will accept him to discuss the laws of Israel, and if the Gentile accepted he should discuss this matter according to the laws of Israel (as which is mentioned as such in the Gm' in the 20th century) isn't it all like that and is it meaningless and why would Israel be bound by this, after all every Gentile will claim that he wants to discuss this matter according to the laws of Israel, and perhaps the Marqam Meiry in a Gentile who has accepted that he should discuss everything in the laws of Israel, and needs to be studied and clarified.
And Yaoi' in the Haza B. K. C. Y. S. K. Damboar in his words about the raids which he believed according to our words that even a resident adult is exempt who harms the ox of a resident resident, and according to his words I will also consider the words of the Ritba and the above-mentioned Or Shim Kafstan that a resident resident is exempt A bull of Israel that rammed his bull is exempt.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5377