All that is decided is only if the father wants to discuss in his city and the son wants to discuss in his city, but if the son wants to discuss in the father's city another court does not belong to this court, and it is like a law where the plaintiff and the defendant live in the same city, and in this way if the father wants to discuss the court The regular and accepted of the place in the way they used to litigate with them is his right, and if he does not meet these conditions, the son can claim that he wants a zabla.
And for the matter of the nearby place, a walking distance of 216 minutes, it is considered to be within the city, and for the matter of the taxi distance of this time, refer to Dina.
Sources: Mainly the law of going after the defendant, the judges discussed whether the HH in the way that the plaintiff wants to discuss the defendant's city, but who wants to discuss another B.D., however, they go after the defendant, or not, and my uncle, Rabbi Yeshaya Natan Meltzer, elaborated on this in his extensive article [ The Righteous and the Righteous Collection 17771], and Ish that he brought from some of the rulings that wrote in all respects the defendant can delay, and it is explained in the Book of Contributions and several other rulings, but in many rulings it is explained in Halacha that the defendant in the 23rd can only claim that he wants zabla'a, and also It is only when there are no permanent judges to the place, and this is what brought many first and last ones who discussed and divided these laws.
But for our purposes, the meaning in the words of Maharik Shosh Noach, who is the source of this law in the latter, (I quoted part of his language in A from the adjacent answers), that there is shame in the one who obliges his mother to come to discuss with him in his city that is not burning, and in the raids the mere tirkha and the preoccupation with the trouble of getting to this Bd is The shame that shames his mother (and G-d his father to decide his opinion), but he would have interpreted in a different way the image that forces his mother to come to the Bd against her will is the shame to his mother.
However, in his language there "that we should not humiliate his mother to the point of going outside the city to discuss and appeal" means more like the previous side in that the main humiliation is to force him to come to another city, and also means to dispel further the words of the answer there in the Harik, that there is a general compulsion on the son to come to the hospital that the mother wants But only to come to the city, and after he comes to the city, they will discuss the ZBLA together according to law.
And the late Maharika is there in the rest of the answer, and therefore I decree for you, etc., that you come here with a woman where she is there to go to court with her, and if the 2nd of the woman does not have an average for you, you will clear one for her and she will clear one for her, and the years will clear a third for them As long as you discuss this here and don't bother your mother against the law of our holy Torah Akal Maharik.
And in the body of the Maharik's words, it is necessary to further discuss whether the Maharik considers that everything is sued in the city of the plaintiff's Emir' ZABLA, as is the simplicity of the arbitrators, or whether he considers that the contributions and his assistance in the city of the defendant plaintiff are also not subject to the ZABLA, but that the Maharik believes that there is a force for the mother On the one hand, she is his mother [see in Dodi's extensive article in the one you mentioned above].
And it turns out that the Dahmaharik does not distinguish between a defendant in the city of the plaintiff's mother and a defendant in the plaintiff's city. And on the other hand, as mentioned above, that the defendant's son, the defendant, wants to discuss his mother's burning, Amri' goes after the mother), and if it is shameful to discuss it in front of her son's dayan, why would I say, ZBLA, while to renew a step after there is ZBLA, she has no shame, does it mean len And what is the necessity to renew yes, and therefore it is more evident that the Maharik agrees with all the defendants in the city of the plaintiff Damri' Zablaa.
(And in the framed article I will point out that there are several opinions of the arbitrators in this as stated and not only 2 opinions, I also discuss some other details of the law, such as whether the defendant can ask for a B.D. can refuse if he wants to hear in that city as well, should I say, then ZABLA, or does the defendant not have the right to find out at all that a debtor owes a debtor, and there is a side that the defendant only has the right to request that the hearing be held in his own city, while the plaintiff has the right to request in which city (d) In the city of the defendant, he will be tried by a creditor to a creditor, except that this side is allegedly rejected by the court, and by all the opinions of the judges in the above-mentioned article).
And regarding the matter of fact, whether one of the litigants can compel his friend to the ZABLA, the question is whether one of them wants a fixed and acceptable BD in the city, and the Chazoa [Sanhedrin 15] ruled that one of the litigants can always request a ZABLA as long as the plaintiff did not ask for legal counsel fixed in the city, and so the Granak ordered [see the above-mentioned article], and so did other arbitrators, except that the Hazoa also took that it should be a local custom acceptable to litigate with them.
And in the matter of New York (where the matter discussed here happened), the opinion of the AGM [Hom Chb 3] is that there is no fixed and accepted BD name in the city, and it is possible that since then the reality has changed in this regard in New York, and the Levite tribe [H.H. Riv, H.H. Shab] 20 of the association of rabbis from a permanent basis for the communities under the association.
[I.e. in all these details in the aforementioned Dodi article and where the things are more precise and detailed both in the scope of the details and in the scope of the roots of the things and opinions, and here it is only a placeholder for that].
And it should also be noted that the PD of the KTAs Yod Kah who disagrees (Aliba Damharik) about the Rama, Yaoi' in his words that he hears there is a dummy who thinks that one does not follow the father in this way, like the Rama, who is shooting at it in another city where he resides of the father is greater to bother to go to the Bedouin in the distance and 4 hours in the Bedouin in his city (as in the Bedouin in the opinion of the Rambam Eliba D'Hampana 3 and Doc), and the Rambam's model is settled not for Myri but for the matter that the son wants to discuss In another city, but in the city of the father, there is no going after the father alone, and the Kathas is divided only for the matter of another city, about which city there is no dispute at all.
And O. Bnei Chai to Baal Kahanah HOM HA O who brought a custom from his place for a matter of law to go after the defendant if he wants to discuss near his city within 3 Parasat, and the matter of 3 Parasat is according to Rashba and the rulings, and perhaps 55 For a didan at the rate of a walking distance of 3 farsats against him in travel, i.e. a trip of 100 minutes (minutes), and from 1000 meters, each case must be discussed on its own merits, such as in the case that there is a fixed bed in the city and wants a fixed bed outside the city and in a way that wants to be largely outside the city And there is a small one in the city or so.
And there is a need to discuss what we take in a taxi, which is sometimes shorter to another city by taxi than the walk that an ordinary person might walk within the city or the streets around the city, and there is not so much pain and fatigue felt in such a trip, because even in their time there was a rider and api' Gamla Farha, but here it is different from Gamla Farha that God was in their time that God was in it the sorrow of traveling, nor is it abnormal from the way of men as it is possible to argue about Gamla Farha, (and yet at the time of the Maharik and in the case in question we are not talking about such a possibility of Gamla Farha but Only utter regret and a shaking tirah), and since the Maharik's entire judgment is a reference to the mother's tiraha to go after the Bd, one must discuss when he wants to discuss a short taxi ride away that is not a step-by-step tiraha at all.
And there is reason to say that in the case of a short journey, AA is forced upon him, and it may be appropriate to add to this the last few months that, in any doubt, the Dari' to Dina will follow the defendant, but the rate is not clear, whether only 3 farsats right around the city or against the rate of 3 farsats By walking like this on a trip, we will explain, and it should be noted what the arbitrators wrote about the passenger in the car when there are things that need to be continued for D. Milin.
The answer code is: 2588