אם יש פיקוח נפש ממשי יכול להיכנס לבית ואינו צריך לשלם עכ"פ במקרה רגיל, ויזהר שלא לזון עיניו מן הבית, שעל זה אין לו רשות, ובמקום שעולה כסף שהות, כגון בית קפה שמשלמים על שהות, וכן אם בעה"ב מבקש דמים סבירים כשוי ההנאה צריך לשלם לו, אבל אם אין ידוע לו שבעה"ב מבקש א"צ לחשוש לזה.
And in the sources there are more details on this.
Sources: According to the KIL halacha, it is permissible to save himself with his friend's money if the survivor pays his friend who owns the money for his loss [Hom Shant 4 and Shem Shaf 3], therefore if there is a real fear of PKON here, too, it would be permissible to save himself by entering the house His friend, and even though he is using his house and there is evidential damage from it, he will still be allowed to enter, unless we find that they have divided between damage and damage which is explained in the rulings that it is permissible to damage his friend for the purpose of saving himself only and he will pay him later "B and Tor HOM Shant].
But in our case, since the person who afterwards returns the object in its entirety, apparently in a normal case, will not even have to pay, since here it is a permanent court for the Agra, and as for the fact that there are only permanent houses for the Idna for the Agra [RAMA Homum Shasg 6] but not in such a way as to hide in a house for a few minutes, unless otherwise known.
אבל אם הוה קאי לאגרא אין לטעון דמעיקרא בתורת גזילה אתא לידיה, שהגזילה הותרה לו לצורך פקו"נ ולא יצטרך לשלם, אין לטעון כן, דבתוס' ב"ק ריש דף צז מבואר בלאו הכי דבקרקע לא אמרי' סברא זו ורק במטלטלין וכן מבואר בשו"ע סי' שסג החילוק בין קרקע למטלטלין, ואמנם ברמ"א שם ס"ו מבואר דבגזילת קרקע כשבא להשיב הקרקע אינו חייב לשלם מלבד הקרקע ולא שכר בטלתה, היינו רק אם לא נהנה ממנו כמבואר בבהגר"א שם, והנגזל תובע דמי ביטול הקרקע שהיה יכול להשכיר בינתיים, אבל אם נהנה מן הקרקע משלם עליו הנאתו בדקיימא לאגרא.
ויש לציין דדעת כמה ראשונים שאפי' קלב"מ שפטור בנזיקין חייב בשכירות [ר"ת בספר הישר מובא במאירי בב"ק ובראב"ד ורשב"א בב"מ], ויהיה קצת דחוק לומר דקלב"מ חייב בשכירות ופטור בנזיקין ומציל עצמו בממון חבירו יהיה חייב בנזיקין ופטור משכירות, וכן מבואר בסוגי' דלהלן בדין משטה וכו', שאפשר לבקש דמי שכירות, וממילא גם בקיימא לאגרא משמע בפשוטו שיצטרך לשלם.
And regarding what is here, evidentiary damage does not belong to tashmin Efi' If damage is caused by the evil eye, there is no compensation in the evil eye in human law, since it is damage that is not apparent and was not intentional, nor can it be made liable under the laws of heaven, since there is no proven damage, and it is appropriate to appease him in this, and is also made liable when it is found Namely not to look anywhere in the house since the law of damage to evidence includes the law of not looking even when one can actually look, and as explained in the RMA in the Kand Sof sg.
And it is true that there is a law in the years that the official who came out in the laws of heaven to pay to both of them in the ways explained in the C.S.
And the Nidd belongs to C. Ea SI by saying I don't know if you robbed you and there is no plaintiff's claim against him, there is no obligation to leave by the hand of Heaven (and it is possible that the plaintiff's claim against the evil eye does not belong, if he claims that you stole with the evil eye, unless he tells me that such and such happened And the wise man said that if his words are true, it must have been caused by the evil eye, and then it is possible that there is a good claim by the plaintiff, and there is still room to discuss the part of the theft that came, that the thief knew that it was necessary to return the money, when he did not feel what he did for about an hour, and it is possible that he was not fined. to come out of heaven, and you have to settle for it).
And then a person will do everything he can to avoid this, since this act is very indecent to enter his friend's house without his permission.
and MMM precisely in such a way that there is a definition of PKON here, such as in a place where people are injured and killed by the bombs, but in places where there is no obvious danger and the local people are not careful to enter a protected space every time or the person fleeing himself at other times is not used to being careful about this, and revealed his opinion that he is not This is according to the Law of Israel (Ea 22 4 12, and 12 Shabbat Kakad 12, and 12 Ketovit 9), and only now that he hears an alarm wants to use this permit to enter his friend's house, not simply to allow such a.
And in the manner of 72 there and telling him that he agrees to enter only if he pays him, apparently he can ask for money, but only as much as this hospitality is worth, and even if he has committed to more he can say Meshte I was with you as explained in Hom Resad, 7.
But in a way that he did not agree with the above-mentioned law.
ואפילו אם לבו נוקפו אם מחוייב לשלם או לא, יש לומר דמ"מ באופן שלא פגש כלל את הבעה"ב ואינו תובע כסף להדיא, א"צ שיהיה לבו נוקפו מספק, כיון דדעת בני אדם אינו לבקש כסף באופן כזה, ודומה למה שנתבאר לדעת הש"ך וכמה פוסקים דבאופן שמסתבר שדרך חבירו למחול א"צ לבקש ממנו להדיא.
And by the way, Orchan Yeavi' in Rama Shaseg 66, Dach, that he enjoys this and it is not lacking Aa Lakof in Bb of Maikara that he will agree since God can rent it out and does not want to, therefore it is not Kofin to do it for free, and there was a place to study in the Nidad Kofin To do it for free, since at best he can use his house, and only the convict if he pays, and therefore since it is unsustainable for Agra and Nidd to use it, he will not be able to ask for it anyway, but this calculation is not correct, of course he can ask for money whenever he wants Then the yard will be changed to a permanent yard for Agra, and all the condemned man will never ask for the money, and only the condemned man if he can be forced to give the yard to be used without money, since the most debauchery does not ask for money, on the part of a prisoner on the level of Sodom, but in a way that asks for money and is allowed to ask Money, there is nothing like Sodom about it.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 2875 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/2875
