עיקר ברכת האורח נקבע להכרת הטוב למי שקיבל טובה וצדקה מבעה"ב בחינם אך לא ממי שקנה אוכל מסוחר בדרך מסחר (ראה משנ"ב סי' רא סק"ז בשם המג"א ואמנם שם נזכר גם שהוא סמוך על שלחנו אבל די סמה שמשלם כדי ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

עיקר ברכת האורח נקבע להכרת הטוב למי שקיבל טובה וצדקה מבעה"ב בחינם אך לא ממי שקנה אוכל מסוחר בדרך מסחר (ראה משנ"ב סי' רא סק"ז בשם המג"א ואמנם שם נזכר גם שהוא סמוך על שלחנו אבל די סמה שמשלם כדי לפטור שכן משמע בשעה"צ קסז ס"ק ס"א אבל גם משם אינו מוכרח דמיירי שם במי שאין לו שום קשר לסעודה, אבל בכה"ח סקי"א פי' להדיא דברי המג"א במשנ"ב הנ"ל דסי במה שמשלם שאינו מברך), מכל מקום אין איסור לומר ברכת האורח גם במסעדה והמברך מתברך שכן דעת המור וקציעה שהאורח מברך ברכת האורח גם כשמשלם.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש להקל. מקורות: ריח של צואת פרות אינו נחשב ריח רע מצד עצמו (כצואת אדם הנחשב ריח רע מצד עצמו גם בלא ריח רע, ועי' בתשובתי מק"ט 2402) אלא אם כן יש בו ריח רע, כמבואר בשו"ע סי' עט ס"ה, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש להקל.

Sources:
ריח של צואת פרות אינו נחשב ריח רע מצד עצמו (כצואת אדם הנחשב ריח רע מצד עצמו גם בלא ריח רע, ועי' בתשובתי מק"ט 2402) אלא אם כן יש בו ריח רע, כמבואר בשו"ע סי' עט ס"ה, והשיעור כל שדרך בני אדם להטער מן הריח (כמ"ש המג"א והמשנ"ב שם בשם הכס"מ).

אבל לענין דיר של בהמה נקט המשנ"ב סעיף ז סקכ"ח בשם החיי"א ע"פ מש"כ השו"ע שם על לול של תרנגולים דינו כריח רע שה"ה גם דיר של בהמה.

אבל בביאור הלכה שם האריך לתמוה על דין זה בשם הקצש"ע.

ולמעשה נקט הביאור הלכה שם שיש לחשוש מלקרות ברפת בקר מדין אשפה שדין אשפה שחזקתה בעלת ריח רע עד שיבדוק.

וכתב עוד שאם יש בה ריח רע שדרך בני אדם להצטער מן הריח בלאו הכי אסור אבל אם פינוי הצואה מן הרפת ובדק הכתלים שאין בהם צואה מותר לקרות ק"ש שם.
(ומסתמא יש עדיין ריח קלוש ואעפ"כ מכיון שפונה ואין ריח שדרך בני אדם להצטער מותר)
ולכן בניד"ד שיש ריח קלוש אין לאסור אע"פ שכשיתקרבו יותר יריחו ריח שבני אדם מצטערים ממנו.

ויש לצרף בזה גם הדעות שריח רע שאין לו עיקר מועיל הפסקת רשות, ובתשובה הנ"ל 2402 כתבתי להקל יותר מניד"ד להתיר בריח קלוש שאין מורגש ברשות אחרת אף אם מקור הריח מביוב, עי"ש, וכ"ש בנידון דידן שהוא מגיע מדבר שאין דינו כצואת אדם שיש פוסקים שהתירוהו לגמרי וכן להביאור הלכה שהחמיר יותר אבל לא החמיר כהחי"א אלא רק שהוא מדין חזקת אשפה וכנ"ל.

ויש מי שטען שהגדר של דרך בני אדם להצטער מן הריח הוא סג הריח דמכיון שסוג הריח הוא ריח שמפריע בעי' הרחקה מלאה, אבל למעשה מבואר בפוסקים דיש אופנים בצואת בהמה שמותר אע"פ שבריכוז שדרך בני אדם להצטער אסור וכנ"ל בדברי הביאור הלכה, וא"כ ה"ה גם בענייננו אע"פ שבקרוב אסור אבל ברחוק שאין דרך להצטער [ויש הפסק כדין מהמקום המריח] מותר, ואף שיש לדחות שאחרי שנוצר כאן גוף של צואה שדרך להצטער ממנו שוב כל הריח המגיע ממנו הוא כצואת אדם מ"מ זה דחוק מידי להחמיר כ"כ ולעיל הקלתי גם במקור ביוב ממש כנ"ל.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

מסתבר שאינו יכול לברך באופן האסור (דהיינו בכל אופן שע"פ הלכה אסור לקרוא תוך ד"א של מת או קבר או בית הקברות) דהרי מה יש לטעון שיברך כדי שלא יפסיד הברכה, כגון בברכה על הברקים וכדומה, אין לטעון כן, הרי ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

מסתבר שאינו יכול לברך באופן האסור (דהיינו בכל אופן שע"פ הלכה אסור לקרוא תוך ד"א של מת או קבר או בית הקברות) דהרי מה יש לטעון שיברך כדי שלא יפסיד הברכה, כגון בברכה על הברקים וכדומה, אין לטעון כן, הרי אפי' אם קרא ק"ש דעת השו"ע שחוזר וקורא (כמבואר באו"ח ס"ס עב ועי"ש בנו"כ שאינו מוסכם), אם כן פשוט שלא יברך לכתחילה כדי להרוויח הברכה, וכן מבואר בפוסקים שאפי' על ידים שאין נקיות לא יברך אפי' אם יפסיד הברכה, אפי' ששם קיימא לן שאינו חוזר ומברך, ואע"פ שכאן הוא לא חסרון בברכה אלא מצד כבוד הבריות של המת, מ"מ אלימא כבודו של המת שלא לברך.

ויש להוסיף דאמנם היה מקום לומר בין איסורא שהוא בא מחמת כבוד הבריות לבין איסור מחמת כבוד שמים, דבכבוד הבריות אתיהיב למחילה כמ"ש התוס' בשבועות ל' בשם הגמ' בברכות כ' שכ"ה שם בקצת ספרים כמ"ש בהגהות וציונים בכרכות שם, וממילא כאן שהוא רק מחמת לועג לרש יהיו המתים צריכים למחול על כבודם, ר"ל דאין להם רשות שלא למחול על כבודם כיון שתתבטל הברכה, וממילא כבודם מחול ועומד, כך היה מקום לומר, אבל זה אינו, דקי"ל בברכות שם דלא אמרי' סברא זו אלא רק באיסור דאורייתא.

ויעוי' בגשר החיים שכ' דלגבי ברכת אשר יצר אתכם בדין יכול לומר בתוך בית הקברות, ואמנם יש שנזהרו גם בזה כמדו', לברך רק מחוץ לבית הקברות, יעוי' מנהג החזו"א בזה (אף שיש לטעון שהוא מצד טומאת המת ואכמ"ל), אבל גם לפמ"ש הגשר החיים, הכוונה בזה דברכה זו יש בה צורך המתים וטובת המתים ודברי טובה וברכה להם וממילא כיון שהוא לטובתם לא אמרי' שיש בזה דבר שאינו טוב להם משום לועג לרש, אבל אין זה משום שלא אפשר, דאדרבה אפשר לברך בחוץ, וגם אין לומר שמצוותו בכך משום שאפשר לברך בחוץ וכנ"ל (וגם אם נאמר שמצוותו בכך לא שייך בכל ברכת הראי' יעוי' מנחות ה', אבל אם נאמר שלא אפשר שייך גם בכל ברכות הראי' היכא דלא אפשר), ואולי מיירי שם רק כשלא אפשר.

ושוב ראיתי בתשובות הר"מ גבאי גם אני אודך ח"ה סי' ז סק"ג שהביא כמה מ"מ בזה ומדבריו מבואר שיתכן שיוכל לברך.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Yaoi' in the Gm' Baruchot La PB Dadin's blessing on wine and on oil is because it is a blessing to the Lord, and perhaps you are of the opinion that grape juice, which has no possibility of becoming wine, does not count for my marriage to the Lord, and if you are allowed to say that I consider my marriage to the Lord, which is still ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Yaoi' in the Gm' Baruchot La PB Dadin's blessing on wine and on oil is because I thought it was a blessing and perhaps you are of the opinion that grape juice, which has no possibility of becoming wine, does not count as wine, and if you want to say that it is considered that I drink a wine that is still It is more important than grapes in their eyes, MM is explained in the Gm, there is a distinction between the Icha Daicha and the Alevi Iloya Aharina or not, and apparently these opinions hold that this thing is considered as the Ika Ilavia Aharina since it had to be worthy of being made into wine and then the Lord gave it importance , but now it is not worthy to be a wine again will be eliminated from its importance.

And so, why don't we bless the 11th tree for this, since it is not the main part of the fruit, as it was called by Ar Nachman Bar Yitzchak Zelaf Natai Inshi Adeta, etc., and here we make a change to a worse fruit, and Also above, she named in the types of dakmha dakhiti that I mentioned beginning with regard to Eita la Iluya Aharina.

What you asked about grape juice is considered an important drink today, it can only be useful to the Shi'a HaGrish from the State of Hamer Medina (and Rabbi Bashov Yitzchak Lehrab Drezi who actually brought an instruction on this matter from the HaGrish), and it depends on the matter what the fence of Hamer Medina is, but the importance of A finished wine that is remembered as Ashtani al-Iliyyah is only in the sense that it is defined as pleasing to God and people, that is, that it is a drink that is intoxicating and causes joy.

With regard to the next pate in Kesnin, the importance is that a nutritious food was created here at the level of the nutritious grain, and it is baked and has reached the end of its work, and Lika Illoya after the Teriya [i.e. blessings to him], and it is important in any case.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here, your question does refer to the teaching of some of the arbiters of our time regarding the matter of mixing water with grape juice that a little water nullifies the wine's strength, but the question is also why in the admixture of water with the strong wine according to the arbitrators, the wine's strength runs out even when it is diluted in the ways explained in the arbitrators, and here it is not...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here, your question does refer to the teaching of some of the arbitrators of our time regarding the matter of mixing water with grape juice that a little water cancels the wine's strength, but the question is also why in a mixture of water with strong wine according to the arbitrators, the wine is depleted even when it is diluted in the ways explained in the arbitrators, and here it is not so difficult since the importance of wine He remained even when he was a minority, see B. C. Red S. H. and No. 2 there, but the difficulty is why so much in the mixture of grain and water.

And really, in the interpretation of the halakhic Rish C. Rabbi, there is a side in his words that the one who is condemned for the mixture of wages is in such a way that after he has already mixed with it as much water as he can mix, and now we will mix wages with it, and also according to the side that does not, he brought there the opinion of the Gra that disagrees on this law, as will be presented below The answer, and IAS in the 20th century and in the explanation of the halacha in each section A, which discusses this matter at length.

And to the body of your question about the instruction of some of the judges of our time regarding the mixture of water with grape juice, which much less than half loses the din of wine, according to the Shachar, we did not hear that they ordered the same regarding the mixture of shachar in wine, perhaps there was a reason to say that the main reason to share this is because the blessing of the wine is not due to the form of the food, but because Its importance, and for this reason, wine is changed by a blessing different from all the other members of its kind, as explained in the blessings of the OT, and the sages opined that in a mixture of water every 1000 ml according to his method, it does not have the importance of wine, but in the mixture it is a reward since it does not nullify the important power of the wine, but it is the main one. The importance of wine is that which makes one happy, and in this, even when it is mixed with wine, its power will not be nullified by it, and yet its name will not be nullified as much as in grape juice, and we also find in the Bible that wine and wine are mentioned together, when sometimes the reference is to wine and sometimes the meaning is to actual wine, In this way, the ruling goes back to following the majority as a rabbi in S. Rabbi SA.

However, after the study again, it seems necessary for the Gerish to consider that a mixture of sake would be better than a mixture of water, and also in the explanation of the halacha in S. Rav SA, the end of the 4th, he blesses that everything is implied in his words that the wines are weak, but according to the lesson explained in his words, there is no reward Better than water.

And he brought there the opinion of the Graha that even with strong wines, according to the Shoah, water is better than the reward. For the Graha, the reward is no worse than water, and from this the Mishnab learned that the reward and water are the same for them, also regarding the fact that the reward is not better than water.

And so, to our point, even with today's juices, there are judges of our time who have taken that lose the din of wine much less water (see Menchat Shlomo Kama 34 45 and Ak, Taninah 33, Halichot Shlomo Pesach 45 33 and Arhot Halachah note 90, Shabbat Laws on Shabbat 11 p. Shapo in the name of the Gerish, the lessons of the Gerish Elyashiv Berchot p. Sha'a) There will be no better reward than an alleged mine.

As for what you asked about raisin wine, I would appreciate it if you could justify your question again (and by C. Ra'ab Skt'7).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

He will bless in no name and kingdom. Sources: Here it seems that he should have blessed him with Baruch Dayan the truth, it should be. But in fact I pondered, apparently there are three flavors here...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

He will bless in no name and kingdom.

Sources: Here it seems that he should have blessed him with Baruch Dayan the truth, it should be.

But in fact I pondered, apparently there are three reasons here that he could not bless.

Lord, the blessing is the blessing of the truth, and basically this blessing is a blessing on the bad rumors, and here the bad rumors need to be felt in order to bless, because along with the bad rumors it is also remembered that on good rumors he blesses that we have lived or the good and the benevolent [if it is also good for others] in the Mishnah with blessings , and therefore you should note that you bless.

And also, was this blessing of the House of Israel in the destruction also said over a distant rumor that has already passed a long time since it was heard, since in a distant rumor he does not bless that we have lived if time has already passed from the time he heard as explained in the passims, and also over a garment he blesses at the time of Keni' or first wearing it as a mash In the Shoah, and concerning the fruits of the Holy Spirit, if he does not bless the first time he eats, he does not bless. So here too, since more than a year has passed since the time of the fire, and apart from that, he has seen the house being destroyed, how many times is it possible that he cannot bless with the Baruch Dayan of Truth, so it is not said that every thirty who sees the destruction can bless as we have explained because it is possible that he is from the blessing of the usual Dayan of Truth.

And the bad rumors in the Havilah of the type of Demok regarding tearing up are about the majority of the public and as an act which is in David and Jonathan as Damari there in the Gm and Ish in the rulings in the definition of things, and really it causes tangible sorrow to a person when he sees the bad rumors in the scope and magnitude of the described In the Gm and the judges there, a kind of what a person feels when such a case happens to him himself, and in any case when he calls another private person such a thing that he does not feel personal sorrow because of this, the YLA in defining the blessing of the dayan of truth in this way, that perhaps the dayan of truth on the houses of Israel in their destruction will be fixed in the form of a plurality of public , like after the destruction of a house when he saw many settlements of Israel in ruins, a kind of judgment of tearing up the cities of Judah, which is explained in Gm. Mok there and regarding that he lived us in the types of Dgm. in Berchot Net PB which does not bless for a good other than that he lived us.

And it should also be noted how many rulings are explained in the law that sees the houses of Israel in their settlement, that is, in their aggression and valor and not in the time of exile (cit. in Rashi Berchot Shem and Bibi Shem, and Yeoi' Kahach 3. Rakhad Skala 5), and there is a side in the Halacha that does not bless them at this time On the houses of Israel in their settlement (i.e., from the 18th century, there is a reference to the name of the 2nd in the opinion of Rashi), and from this there is a place to learn the opposite as well, because destruction is not the term for the destruction of one house but for a state of destruction, and there is perhaps a place to say that it is not useful that it The time of destruction in the HCMC but after a time of general destruction, as with regard to the blessing of their settlement, which is at the time of a general settlement (and it depends on whether it is said that the definition of the time of settlement is when the settlement of Israel is in their aggression and valor, or that it depends only on the building of the HCMC, and from this we learn about the destruction, etc. in 28 ibid.).

However, in the source of the law in the blessings of Noah, after Baraita Dahrua Bati Yisrael in Horbanan, the incident with Beita Darv Hana bar Hanilai is mentioned and there it is mentioned that his house was destroyed, and it seems that Damilta's house may have been destroyed privately, and so perhaps we should study the model of one house that was destroyed in general that was condemned there. However, it is not necessary, since his house was destroyed privately, since he was in exile and was not far from the time of the destruction, and they had troubles such as from Papa Bar Netzer, in the book of Rabbi Shaira Gaon, and also perhaps he was brought there in the GM only from a matter to a matter, and not because of this alone there is to bless, and also the house of Movehak in his generation may be more related to the bad rumors as we found regarding the blessing of the wise man, but this is a very limited opinion and is not the main point, but ACP 11 mainly condemned. The house of one person that was destroyed must be blessed with the blessing of the true God.

And a second reason I reflected on what I might not bless in a dignified way, because perhaps the blessing of the Dayan of truth is a special law here to be fixed on the houses of Israel that were destroyed, and here it is because it is a common house of which much and almost all of it exists, and only one house was destroyed from it, 1 Since the shared house has room to be considered as one house and the apartments as rooms in the house, we also wish to repair and bless a room in a house that was destroyed, even if it is used for an entire apartment, and even if there is no other place left for it in this house.

And a third reason I pondered on the reason why it might not be blessed, because the law of blessing dayan the truth in destruction may be a special regulation established for permanent destruction, but if the person is engaged in the construction and restoration of the place, and everything is in stages as usual with approvals and contractors' agreements, etc., it is possible that this will not be corrected.

And a fourth reason is to refer to the Shi'i of the Rabbinical Council that the houses of Israel in their settlement is a blessing only on churches, and there are judges who wrote that the custom in the 10th of the Rabbinical Law [28 in the name of the Rashal], and in the 19th century if the blessing on their destruction is In this way, and it is true that the Salachh Meshach is because only a synagogue is completely whitewashed (with no remains of its mother as the Maga C. Taks Meshach) does not belong to the blessing that blesses their destruction, but in the above-mentioned BH Gofa Shchh that is what they say About the houses of OH in their settlement, they say only about the houses of AZ and not about the rest of their houses Hazi', which he did not understand in the opinion of the RIF as the Salachh, (and also ZA about the Salchh Dai because the RIF took his words only On the Court of Appeals, after all, even a buyer of a house from Goy does not need to peel off and achmal), and the law in all of this.

And in fact, in the meantime, as long as there is no clarification for all of this, he can bless without Shem and Malchut, and according to those who think there are additional solutions for the blessings of a doubt, he can use them in Gach and Akmal.

And I'll just comment that the reasons I wrote are according to the two sides, the first reason I wrote is according to the side that is the blessing of the regular judge, and the second side I wrote is according to the side that is a private regulation here.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The custom of making it easier and in the latter is remembered that it is right to bless something else that is everything and today it may be easier. Sources: The latter differed on this, some obliged with a blessing [Answer from the High Priest in the Garden of Roses, part of the O.H., Rule 2, C. A.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The custom of making it easier and in the latter is remembered that it is right to bless something else that is everything and today it may be easier.

Sources: The latter differed on this, some obliged with a blessing [Answer from Rabbi HaCohen in the Garden of Roses, Part Och, Rule 2, C. A. Shem Skalat] and there are those who dispensed with a blessing [Shut Batei Kahonah HC 31, brought by Aharon C. Kad Mahdura Batra SKA5], and there are those who divided between coffee and tea and dispensed ACP with coffee [see Aru C. Kaed Skat], and in fact the Mishnav wrote about coffee, that it is true that he should bless everything to exempt the coffee [and the Mishka there to bless sugar. or candy that is not part of the coffee].

And anyway, today the situation is simpler with coffee, because while in the past coffee was a unique drink that was like a dessert or, as the HI says, for digesting food, today coffee is used by many as a normal drink and some people drink coffee most of the time of the day even more than other drinks, and of course it is very common to drink coffee as well When you're thirsty, it's what it is, and as some of the arbitrators of our time wrote that the coffee law changed from the time of the Mishnab to our time regarding drinking it before prayer, since during the Mishnab it was a proud custom to drink coffee before prayer and today it is less in the material of the law than it was at the time of the Mishnab , as such it is possible to say here as well.

And also the custom in our time that there is no blessing over coffee at the end of the meal as brought by the Ka'ah [Si Kad Skm], but that there it is better to bless that everything is over another food.

And from the point of view also the sentence that the Mishnab brought from the Haiya is only about coffee after the end of the meal, but the coffee in the middle of the meal does not mean that the Mishnab made it worse since Afi' Bain drank a bitter drink from coffee as explained there he mentioned that the world used to make it easy not to be afraid of it and they have What to rely on, 24 regarding the matter of the coffee 24 of the Mishnav that the words of the Hai'a are not obligatory in this Efi' at the end of a meal.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it is an act of cauldron, i.e. types of food that are not blessed by the giver, even if he has established his feast, then even in retrospect, he is not exempt from his obligation if the giver blessed, but if it is a mouthful that follows in the Kesnin, such as Rogelach and waffles (which at most are doubtful enough for the giver...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it is an act of cauldron, i.e. types of food that are not blessed by the giver, even if he has established his feast, then even in retrospect, he is not exempt from his obligation if the giver blessed, but if it is a mouthful that follows in the kasnin, such as rogelach and waffles (which at most are doubtful, the giver had enough and achmal, and then at the very least the giver went out , but they are certainly not a cauldron's act) In retrospect, it came out to many arbitrators and doubtless blessings to ease.

And Mm in such a way that he intended to set a feast and blessed the Rogelach with food, and immediately regretted it and decided to eat a little, that's what it must have been, even to begin with.

Sources: If it is an act of cauldron, etc., 22 111 (Kulel Noah 91) and Zal, he erred and blessed the bread, the creator of various kinds of food, it came out.
But if the bringer blessed the dish that was made from God's kind of grain, it didn't come out, so it seems to me that it is Akal, and also the ancient Bastama HaKashshaa (Rish C. no SA) almost letter by letter with the addition of a little Aish, and the body of his words is about The next one in Kesnin 26 Haben Ha Haozer (3. xix, section 13) is that he extended to bring evidence for this, and it also means in the words of the B2 that he brought there, and I. also as K. H. (3. xix, sq. 3).

And it also seems that the Mishnab took from the main point of the law that comes out of the one who takes out the fath of the next meal in the Kesnin if it was intended to exempt him, at the end of his words [in the explanation of the halacha in C. X6 45 which are charged at the end] regarding the fath of the next meal in the Kesnin in the middle of the meal when it does not meet the requirements of C, even though his words 1 A. To bring a clear evidence to our case. What he brought yes in the name of the HIA, although the HIA himself is certainly of the same opinion, but what the Mishnab copied his words is not a clear evidence that he thinks is completely the same even in the blessing that is given on the mouth of the next person outside the meal, surely not He copied his words except for the pate that follows in the middle of the meal in such a way that all the conditions of the pate of the pate in the middle of the meal should not be omitted, in which the main opinion of the Mishnab is that a blessing is included in the middle of the meal to provide blessings to make it easy, but dalrocha damilta [in the manner explained in the Bahl there] he added that it is good to do as an advice The Hai'a to exempt in this way, and they are true that as long as there is no evidence from the Ma'kaa in the Mishnav to the contrary, it means that this is his opinion, but it is not completely clear that DIL is only here that he is for the welfare of Damilta (since there is a side that is a ready-made bread and has already come out with the Muzich and Sigi in this From the main point of the law, since there is no blessing to make it easier (according to the above) and in the case that there is still a party who is a party to the contract even without the third of the conditions as explained there and it did not come out because of that in the issuer and what was aimed at exempting the party was not useful since we will consider the following opinions that the issuer does not exempt a party in the contract , mm since most sides to Kola Segi in this).

However, Yaoi' in the 20th century, there in the case of the distribution of the food during the next meal in Kesnin, in a permanent way, that he passed away with the blessing of the remover, since he was in no need to bless the remover for it now, but in a temporary way, he did not pass away with the remover, except that his words there 11 bring clear evidence For our purposes, since there the one who spends the blessing on the bread, does not come to Hedia to exempt the next morsel in the kasnin.

And it is true that the Rabbi did not write as the life of Adam, as well as the Olat always wrote [quoted in Mordechai's article there] and concluded that in fact Tsa, and perhaps their method should be clarified by the reading of the following Fat in Kasnin MM Fat Satma not Akri, like what Damari' "A kerem zeit Akri a kerem satma not akri vei' in the Sukkah 13 in Sugi' Deshem Louis, but he still does not settle at all even then, why if he established his feast on it does the one who brings it bless him, in fact what the one who brings it can bless him when he establishes his feast on it proves that he has the right to be called A complete mouthful.

ויעוי' במאמר מרדכי סקי"ח שהאריך בנידון זה ובתחילת דבריו הביא דברי העולת תמיד ואח"כ דן לחלוק עליו ואח"כ דן אם נימא שיצא מטעם ספק (כמו שהעו"ת השאיר בצ"ע שגדרו ספק לפי מה שביאר המאמ"ר שם), ושוב הביא ראיה ברורה מן הרמב"ם שלא יצא וכך נקט למסקנתו שלא יצא, אלא שכ' שדבר שהוא מחלוקת השו"ע והרמ"א שלפי הרמ"א הוא המוציא לא יצטרך לחזור ולברך מזונות לצאת השו"ע דלענין זה אמרי' סב"ל עכ"ד.

[ויעוי' בהפסקי תשובות שהביא בשם המאמ"ר שסובר כהחיי אדם, ובאמת צ"ע וכן צ"ע שגם הכה"ח שם צירף את המאמר מרדכי להאחרונים המקילים בזה, והג"ר אלחנן כהן שליט"א מכולל חזו"א תירץ לי שהכה"ח מיירי רק לגבי פת הבאה בכסנין המסופקת שהוא פת הבאה בכסנין שלנו, ולא זכיתי להבין דבריו, דודאי אין כוונת הכה"ח לומר כן, חדא שהרי הביא דבריו על תחילת דברי השו"ע דמיירי על פת הבאה בכסנין סתמא, ודין פת הבאה בכסנין המסופקת דן שם בארוכה אחר זה, ועוד שהרי היה צריך כה"ח לחלק ולומר שיש אופן שלא יצא אליבא דהמאמ"ר באופן שהוא פת הבאה בכסנין שאינה מסופקת, ולמה כלל כל האופנים בסתמא שיצא, והרי אין כלל כזה שפת הבאה בכסנין שלנו הוא תמיד מסופק, שהרי יש לנו ולכל מדינה ומקום גם פת הבאה בכסנין שאינו מסופק, אם עונה ל' התנאים, והרי כל הפוסקים לדורותיהם כ' פסקי דינים לענין פת הבאה בכסנין שעונה על ג' התנאים בהרבה אחרונים, ובודאי שאם יש חילוק דין בזה היה צריך לציין זאת, ועוד דהרי לשי' המאמ"ר גופא כמעט אין פת הבאה בכסנין מסופקת, שהרי המאמ"ר סובר לשיטתו שכל אחד מג' התנאים מועיל לעשותו פת הבאה בכסנין, והמאמ"ר גופיה האופן של הספק שהזכיר הוא רק דבר שתלוי במחלוקת השו"ע והרמ"א כמבואר שם, והיינו באופן של מתיקות, וא"כ לומר שהמאמ"ר מדבר בסתם פת הבאה בכסנין שלנו אינו מדוייק כלל, ועוד דהרי הכה"ח שם כ' דהמאמ"ר דעתו כשאר האחרונים החי"א והקצש"ע, והרי אין דעתו כלל כמותם כלל ועיקר והוא חולק עליהם בתכלית, ולא סבר כן אלא באופן של ספק, נמצא מכ"ז שלא שייך לומר שהכה"ח התכוון לומר שהמאמ"ר מיירי רק באופן המסופק ולא באופן ודאי].

And above all, the opinion of the Mamar from the Rambam is apparently not difficult for the HIA Dharambam Shem Meiri regarding the matter of a stew of Dagan, but in this the HIA admits to the act of a pot, and he did not say his words except in the next portion of the Kesnin, and so on The Mamar, in that he did not divide the Dehari, is the apparent division, and as the assistant brought the taste that came out in the next fath in Kesnin, because in establishing a feast, it comes out with Yadah, and this taste is very understandable. Not in the act of a cauldron, since the act of a cauldron, after all, if he fixed his feast on it, he did not escape his obligation.

And the last case that I brought up in which it comes out first and foremost and according to the side that does not come out in the previous case, it means the same in Moshe's bonds as well as according to the above-mentioned side, I.S. 3 C. Kach letter 2, (mainly the words of the AGM seem to be accurate according to the side that does not come out in the Mouthi in the next pate in a purely Kesnin (who does not regularly eat a meal), and we were as explained by the A.R. Fat, and this apparently is not according to the interpretation of the AR, but it means to clarify in his words that the 18th Efi' comes out to begin with as he stated there according to the Ritba).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Raisin wine is a finished wine and has the possibility to ferment and create an intoxicating drink, and it is kosher to judge retrospectively (cf. Above all, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Raisin wine is a finished wine and has the possibility to ferment and create an intoxicating drink, and it is kosher to judge retrospectively (cf. Above all, for that is the blessing of the vine (Barchot la 12), which makes God and people happy (ie Barchot la 11), but without that it does not have the importance of wine according to the Gerish method.

It was found that the measurer of wine is not one level of importance or another, but whether it is included in pleasing God and people or not.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If he is still full, such as if he ate all he needed at a meal and the time of his satiety lasted for some time, in this way he can still bless the food even if 72 minutes have passed (see Och C. Kaped 66 and Sh'nav Sec. And how many arbitrators wrote that in the beginning there is no other after the...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If he is still full, such as if he ate all he needed at a meal and the time of his fullness lasted for a period of time, in this way he can still bless the food even if 72 minutes have passed (see Och C. Keped 66 and Sh'nab Sach).

And some of the judges wrote that in the first place the blessing of food should not be delayed after 72 minutes, since we do not always know how to say that we are still full (cit. And Minchat Shlomo 1838 letter 10).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen