Frequently Asked Questions and Answers found in Halacha

Rabbi Akiva Moshe Silver

Heirs inherited an apartment and there is an ongoing dispute between them about how to divide the apartment, and in practice the apartment has been standing for a long time without a tenant or a tenant, since they did not reach any agreements between them, is it permissible to use the name without their permission, this is a law that benefits and is not lacking

Since the heirs do not give permission to live there, therefore it is forbidden to live there, and even any use for which he would not pay rent (i.e., a freeholder from a servant to a migrant) is prohibited by law, this dedin is enjoyed and it is not lacking. It is for money and he is not renting it out for reasons of convenience, aa he is obliged to give it for free because of a coercion on the level of Sodom since even in payment he does not want to give the apartment, and as explained in 27 of the Rama'a Hom C. Shaseg Sou.

And I will not say, except that it is convenient for him to broadcast it in his house (Sam'a, Ibid., 25, according to Hagm', B.K. 21:11), but when he stands and shouts, "I have no choice."

And if a person has already lived there retroactively without permission, and the heirs come to ask for payment for it, and he claims that he does not want to pay because due to the relationship between the heirs it was not possible for them to rent the apartment to anyone, and they claim that they would like to but they cannot, but if someone already comes to live there They ask for the rent.

There was room for sidestepping in this way that since, if it were possible for each of the heirs separately to rent the apartment under the conditions suitable to him, he would rent it out, therefore if a person used a stipulation as existing to Agra, since Delanin owed a stipulation as existent to Agra, and so on.

And in the Rama'a there is a dam road to rent it, except that now I will not work for Migr Bater Shta Azlinan, but there is no evidence from there for our matter, Dish to say Dharmama does not rent it except in such a way that he really has no point and need and desire and interest to rent it now and KML Despite the fact that most of the time he does court tenants, from now on since that's how he considers himself not a slave to a migrant.

And maybe there was a place to hang things in the first dispute regarding the matter of a permanent courtyard for Agra, but the 72 is not here, Dalharabi (quoted in the OZ C. Kakad) considered it a non-sustainable courtyard for Agra, and the OZ put a part on it, and so did the Maharshall [yes] Q. B. K. P. B. SS.

And yet for the majority of the judges who think that a yard whose owners are not in front of us for rent is considered a sustainable yard for Agra because if he could rent it, it is possible here since if they could they would rent it out it is considered sustainable for Agra, and there is some room to divide this between an external situation that interferes To maintain the lease and the actual situation of the authority and power of the apartment at the moment.

And after thinking about it, it seems that there is no need to discuss this matter, nor is it necessary to bring imagination to say that this apartment is considered sustainable for Agra at all, since even if it is not considered sustainable for Agra, all the condemned who enjoys it and this is not lacking is in a way that he enjoys it, it turns out that there is no rabbi who is careful about it, But in the way that he was told in the 19th century, he left and did not come out, not only is he not allowed to donate there as above in the name of the Rama, but he also has to pay if he continues to donate there according to the Shu'a C. that closed section 6, and we were a C Damiri in an unsustainable yard for Agra, in the SMA and in the Bihagra.

(And I.S. in the issue of Maharash Eiger what was discussed by the PZ regarding the intention of the Rama there later in the section on issued by B.A.B.

And we can also add that since it is explained in the Sama according to the arbitrators that this law is enjoyed and it is not lacking, it is a law based on an estimate on the part of Umadana that it does not interfere with the Bhab, and anything that the Bhab is not comfortable with is not this law at all, so that is the law in the way that is clear to us Shevab did not allow her to do so, and therefore as it is known and clear that Shevab does not agree, it is forbidden to enter Dor Shem, and the Lord who transmits Shem will have to pay.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5426 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא:

עד כמה התשובה הזאת היה שימושית?

לחץ על כוכב כדי לדרג אותו!

דירוג ממוצע 0 / 5. ספירת קולות: 0

אין הצבעות עד כה! היה הראשון לדרג את הפוסט הזה.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9716!trpenLeave an answer!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9723!trpenRelated Questions!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen