The agreement of some rulings that those who do not have a home cannot light Hanukkah candles, and regarding whether one is obligated to rent a house Yaoi' in Mekorot.
Sources: Hanukkah Holy Scriptures Sikh, Agam Yod 13 Cd Aut 5, Menchat Shlomo 7b Sana 1, Panini Hanukkah Pd 4 p. To D.H. at night, which brought a lot of legal details about it.
And as for whether one is obligated to try to have the Garchak house in the lesson (printed in Shavuot Yitzchak Hanukkah 13) he brought in the name of the Garisha yes, and apparently it is in general every charge of a Hanukkah candle that is obligated to ask about the openings or sell its cover, and there is no exemption here.
And the Garchak there 20 Delharambam is obligated to rent a house as above and the Rashi may be exempt as well as to rent an exemption, and it was brought there that the Garisha took the dalkua must, as in Beshavot Yitzchak in detail.
However, in the 7th verse that he mentioned in the 17th chapter of Tareb 17, which the Hammad Moshe Raya brought from him and the 20th of the 20th century, Dain Mohin in the one who practices like this, there inside he mentioned in his words another matter (which is not discussed in the 16th chapter there) the one who is among the foreigners even if he does not have A house and a door must be lit with a blessing even if they light it in his home, because when he is among strangers he does not have the blessing of sight, and perhaps it is a special law for those who cannot bless the sight, hence he had to mention this law of lighting without a house only in the Pena without Law of the foreigners.
However, even if the Riaz thinks so in the case of a person who does not have a home, it is found that he disagrees with Rashi and Tos' (between the Grisha and the Grihak) and is not viable for his reasons.
And who is it also possible to reject that what the Riaz took he has no beit kona that he is an innkeeper instead of a gentile, a model in the innkeeper the first mentioned the language no beit, ref. RA, and therefore the Riaz took the language he has no home for himself.
And once again I looked at the interior of the Rabbi and it turned out that all the words of the Rabbi there are true about an innkeeper.
And in the body of the Rabbi's words, even though it is mentioned in his words that Nah is not a mezuzah that is only owed by those who have a house, MM there should be a discussion there about an innkeeper who has the right to live in a house, and I still don't shoot someone who doesn't have a house at all who is obligated to rent a house for that purpose, Vil" P.
And again they sent us a question why they didn't mention that the person asking or selling the property also rents a house, and it should be noted that this is not an express rule for the above matter, and it is also not agreed that one is obliged to bother to rent a house and so on.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 4023 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/4023
