Siman 384

It is stated in the Yerushalmi (Hadar, halacha 2): "There is a Tanna who teaches: The koster (like a questor, and he is an officer appointed by the king) prohibits immediately, and a guest after thirty days; there is a Tanna who teaches: The koster prohibits after thirty days, and a guest never prohibits. The one who says the koster prohibits immediately—refers to one who is frequent; and a guest after thirty days—refers to one who is not frequent. And the one who says the koster prohibits after thirty days—refers to those who enter with permission; and a guest never prohibits—refers to those who enter without permission." Thus far his words.

And this is its explanation: for it has already been explained in siman 382, section 20, in the name of our teacher, the Rema, that when one lends or rents his house to a non-Jew—he does not prohibit, for he did not lend it or rent it to him to prohibit it upon himself; see there. And this is regarding an ordinary non-Jew. But a quaestor of the king—the law of the kingdom is the law, and he has the authority to dwell in whichever house he desires, and the house is like his own, and immediately upon his coming to the house it is like his—and he prohibits. However, this is when he is accustomed to come, but when he is not accustomed to come—he is like an ordinary guest, and he does not prohibit. But when he has dwelt for thirty days—it is like his own house, and he prohibits. And this is the first braaita, and when he is not accustomed to come—it calls him a guest, meaning this quaestor is a guest. And the second braaita, that a quaestor prohibits after thirty days—this is when he is not accustomed, as was said before. However, this is when he enters with the permission of the king, for the law of the kingdom is the law. But this quaestor, when the king did not give him permission—he is nothing but an ordinary extortionist, and he does not prohibit even after thirty days. (This is the explanation of the Yerushalmi, and the Korban HaEidah raised many difficulties, see there in the Sheyarei Korban where he wishes to correct the version of the text, but according to what I have written the version is straight and the explanation is clear with the help of Heaven.)

And according to this, that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: "A non-Jew who enters for the purpose of lodging, if he entered without permission—he never prohibits. And if he entered with permission, if he is accustomed to coming—he prohibits immediately, and if he is not accustomed—he does not prohibit until after thirty days," thus far their words, the intention is also with the permission of the king and without the permission of the king, for the source is from the Yerushalmi. (See Beit Yosef) And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: "Soldiers of the king's army who entered the houses of Jews, whether by force or by will, if the homeowners have in those places where they entered vessels that are prohibited to move on Shabbat—they do not prohibit for them," thus far his words, for this is like a seizure as mentioned in the previous simanim. But otherwise—they prohibit, for the law of the kingdom is the law, since they entered according to the license of the king. And that which he wrote "whether by force or by will," meaning whether the Jew did not want or whether he did want—because every Jew is obligated to keep the command of the kingdom. (And with this the difficulties of the Taz and the Magen Avraham are resolved well, see there. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 1, that one who enters for the sake of a debt is called 'with permission'—certainly it is so, but this is when he acted with the permission of the courts according to the law of the kingdom.)