יש בזה כמה שיטות, ולכן מהשיעור הקטן ביותר יש להפריש כבר משהו בלא ברכה ומהשיעור הגדול יותר יש להפריש בברכה. כמו כן יש לשים לב שאם מפרישים מבצק בשיעור הקטן ואחר כך מצרפים שני בצקות יחד בשיעור הגדול הם עלולים להתחייב ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש בזה כמה שיטות, ולכן מהשיעור הקטן ביותר יש להפריש כבר משהו בלא ברכה ומהשיעור הגדול יותר יש להפריש בברכה.

כמו כן יש לשים לב שאם מפרישים מבצק בשיעור הקטן ואחר כך מצרפים שני בצקות יחד בשיעור הגדול הם עלולים להתחייב מחדש בהפרשת חלה מספק (בכפוף לפרטי דינים), ואף שני מאפים יכולים להצטרף ולהתחייב בכפוף לפרטי הדינים.

השיעורים הם כדלהלן:

בספר מידות ושיעורי תורה כתב ששיטת הגר"ח נאה היא 1,666 ק"ג קמח (ויש כמה שיעורים קרובים לזה, במדריך הכשרות של בד"ץ העדה"ח כ' 1,680, והגרי"מ שטרן כ' 1,660, ובהגדש"פ "מיר" כ' 1,670), אבל יש להחמיר להפריש בלא ברכה כבר משיעור של למעלה מ1,200 ק"ג, ולשיטת החזו"א החיוב בברכה הוא 2,250 ק"ג.

יש שנהגו להפריש בברכה רק באזור שנים וחצי קילו (בשם הבא"ח הובא 2,490 ויש שמועה בדעת החזו"א שהיום זה בערך 2,500, ועי' בספר הבית בכשרותו להגרי"א דינר מה שהביא התייחסות הגרח"ק והגרנ"ק לשמועה זו).

יש לשים לב שמכיון ויש הרבה שיעורים בזה (וחלק גם לא הבאתי כאן) רצוי לעשות שאלת חכם איזה שיעורים יש להחשיב מעיקר הדין, כי אחרת יכול לגרום להרבה מאוד ספקות (למשל שהיה השיעור קטן והפריש חלה, ולאחר מכן הצטרף לשיעור הגדול ממנו והפריש שוב, ולאחר מכן הצטרף לשיעור הגדול ממנו, וכן הלאה).

כהשלמת הדברים אפשר לציין כי למרות שהשיעור במקורו נאמר בשיעור נפח במשנה ובגמ', אבל היום מקובל למדוד זאת לפי משקל לאחר מדידות שנעשו בהזדמנויות שונות על ידי אישים שונים שבאו למדוד את המשקל בהשוואה לנפח כדי להקל על מדידת הקמח לפי שיטות המדידה המצויות כיום, וכנ"ל כעין זה המדידות המצויות לגבי מצה של ליל הסדר.

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

Those who practice according to the clear Mishnah are allowed to make it easier and only do dessert and ablution. Sources: The current in the Jud C. Pat in explaining the words of the Rama, there it means that they took to make it worse...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Those who practice according to the clear Mishnah are allowed to make it easier and only do dessert and ablution.

Sources:
In the commentary on the words of the Rama, there it means that they resorted to making it stricter like the Zohar [Mishtimim Kakah 1a] who simply did not divide between milk after meat and meat after milk in the same meal, Iash in Shekh Skat'7 And in the Bihagara SKO, as well as the PMG in the Yod there SKO brought from the clothing in O. C. Keag who made it very worse and the AGM brought the PMG's words, however in the year 2012 at the end of the 11th of Shavuot it seems that there was a raid on him that it is permissible and I have also seen in the name of the Gerhak [the shalchan according to his rule] that this is the custom.

And it is possible that the Mishnav Myri according to what they had a clear custom on the Sabbaths to make it easier, and he urges.
And Ya'oi' in PMG Yod Shem 70 that their custom was to bless in the HMZ after the milk before the meat.

And we see Dharma in the Yod making a meal only with milk after meat, which interprets in the Gm's a meal after meat that it must be stopped in the Behmaza in order to have another meal, and this is what is said there about milk after meat, and the same was brought by the PMG in the Yod there Sec. 7 In the name of the Rabbi, the author of the 18th century in the glosses of Sha'ari Dura C. O. letter 2 [and noted the name of the PMG in the SKA according to Hamudot Chulin P. H. A. letter Kah and Minchat Ya'akov Klal O. letter 3 who stood by it and also explained in the SACH SKA ] Damshak in the Gm in Saudta Ahrita (in the matter of milk after meat) we were in the ruling of Bracha 17, and what they used in the ruling of the hour is justified there that it is instead of a dessert [and it will be explained more in his words above SKA], and the ruling does not belong to the Zohar law at all, but any custom It is to bless in the Hamz and to wait an hour after meat before milk is only according to the Hajm, and in any case the custom is only with milk after meat and not with meat after milk, because it is because of the Hajm and not because of the Zohar. After meat, Dvgm mentions this only in the matter of milk after meat and not about meat after milk (apart from meat after hard cheese, which is discussed by itself, what was judged and what was defined, and where we learned, etc.

And perhaps in a different way (we were on the basis of the previous method only to settle that he took the Zohar as its interpretation in the Gm) who urged to interpret it also in the imaginary Zohar only in milk after meat only, and I.A.

However, these excuses are only to reconcile the words of the Mishnab with the Rama in the Yod there, but as we will explain that the simplicity of the interpretation of the Gra in the Rama is that it is like the Zohar, and also in the Shekh Skatz apparently the most meaningful that it must be made stricter [And tchak that the Shachak put miri with meat after hard cheese, and apparently according to the Zohar it is necessary to make it worse during the Hada Hada and the Saudta Hada also with meat after any milk that may be and Tsa, and also Tsa that the Gara in the Skya brought a source for abstaining from meat after hard cheese From the Zohar 25 in B. O. C. Keg, and indeed in the Zohar they did not specifically mention cheese, and perhaps it is considered to be aggravated only by something that has a lingering taste, and with milk, it is not permitted that the taste does not persist for the entire hour if he then made dessert and washed it off legally, and it is true that also In the above-mentioned Shekh it is possible to interpret yes].
And really, the Rama's simplicity in his language that he brought the custom only for milk after meat means that there was no custom for meat after milk to wait an hour and bless with the Hamza, and who is the PMAG custom to bless with the Hamza also in this after the milk before the meat, and maybe the Rama He acted in such a way because of Dekai's words on the author's words, and in all this.

It was found that the strict ones are certainly the clothing and custom brought by the PMG and the lenient ones are certainly the Mishnab and it is also possible to say according to what the Shachak explained in the Sakya and other rulings as above [the Mahara'i and his assistant] the custom brought by the Rama, while according to the reference to wisdom that the Shachak brought in the 17th, as well as the Hagra and the Bi, how they interpreted the Zohar's opinion should be reviewed in their opinion.

And also in the Rama's opinion, as above, however, his main opinion regarding the intention of the custom turns out to be like the Mahara'i and other rulings as above, and it is also explained in the ways of Moshe SKA that his opinion is the same as the Mahara'i in interpreting the words of the Hag'm there according to the custom (that is, the custom interprets the words of the GAM there) and that the hour is a sort of compromise between the aforementioned Mahara'i opinion [based on the opinions of the Tos and Rabi'a and the other lenient firsts] and the strict opinions of waiting a few hours.

And Yaoi' in the ways of Moshe above mentioned regarding milk after hard cheese which he mentioned to the Zohar, and as mentioned above the Zohar does not only follow cheese, and perhaps it should be reconciled as above that the Zohar interprets in a way that gives a taste and not by drinking milk in Alma and more seems to have brought the words of the Zohar only For the welfare of Damilta to give samakh to the tradition of the Maharam in Gabina, and the 27th century.

Regarding those who practice waiting for an hour if dessert is needed other than that (such as those who practice without stopping for an hour when then surely dessert is needed) Yaoi' in Shekh SKA and PMG 17.

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

יש חנות שעומדת תחת כשרות מהודרת שמאפשרת ללקוחות לבקש מבעלי המסעדה להכין להם טוסטים עם דגים וגבינה בו זמנית ובזה אחר זה, כך שנוצר מצב שהטוסטר מלא בשיירי גבינה שאסורה באכילה לדעת השו"ע, ונשאלת השאלה על מה סמכו ההכשר לתת ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש חנות שעומדת תחת כשרות מהודרת שמאפשרת ללקוחות לבקש מבעלי המסעדה להכין להם טוסטים עם דגים וגבינה בו זמנית ובזה אחר זה, כך שנוצר מצב שהטוסטר מלא בשיירי גבינה שאסורה באכילה לדעת השו"ע, ונשאלת השאלה על מה סמכו ההכשר לתת הכשר לזה לנוהגים עפ"ד השו"ע.

וראיתי בחנות הזו אדם מבני ספרד שהיה נראה אדם של צורה שקונה דבר מאכל המוכן במכשיר הנ"ל, ושאלתי אותו אם מקפיד על איסור דגים בחלב כדעת השו"ע, והשיב שכן, ושאלתי אותו מה עושה עם הבעיה הנזכרת, ואמר לי שהוא לא פוסק ואינו יודע.

והנה לגבי תערובת בעין של דגים בבשר לדידן בני אשכנז הסכמת רוב הפוסקים שהוא אסור עכ"פ כשאין ס', וגם כשיש ס' יש שהחמירו כמו שהרחבתי בתשובה אחרת, ומסתמא שכך הוא לדעת השו"ע בתערובת דגים בחלב, ונשאלת השאלה אם נניח שאין ממשות דג רק טעם דג האם אסור או לא.

והנה כשנשווה לדברי הגמ' בפסחים עו ע"ב על כוורא בכותחא עי"ש דמשמע שגם בדיעבד היה אסור בזמן הגמ', נמצא שגם טעם אסור, אבל באופן הנזכר בגמ' שם של ריחא הוא חומרא דגם לדידן אי' ברמ"א יו"ד סי' קטז ס"ב דבדיעבד אינו אסור ועי"ש בש"ך סק"א שאינו מוסכם אבל כן דעת הרבה אחרונים (ובביאור פסק זה עי' במטה יהונתן שהאריך בזה ואפשר דלעיקר הדין נקט הרמ"א דלדידן נשתנו הטבעים ואין סכנה ולכן לא החמיר אלא לכתחילה, עי' גם ברמ"א או"ח סי' קעג ויו"ד שם ס"ג, ובביאור הגר"א על הרמ"א שם ס"ב משמע שביאר דינו להתיר בדיעבד מדין שאר איסורין דאף שבגמ' איכא מאן דאסר לה היינו משום דסבר ריחא מילתא בכל איסורין אבל לדידן שאין איסור ריחא בשאר איסורין אין איסור ריחא גם בזה, כך יתכן לבאר כוונתו), אבל בניד"ד שהגבינה התבשלה ממש עם דג ונשאר ממשות מהגבינה שהוא חמור מנ"ט בר נ"ט עי' בריש סי' צה א"כ לכאורה הי' לאסור, ובאמת כן מבואר בש"ך על הרמ"א בסי קטז שם דגם אם מכשירין דגים ובשר שנצלו זה אצל זה אבל אם נצלו נוגעין זה בזה אסורין, והביא כן בשם מהרש"ל באיסור והיתר שלו וביש"ש חולין פ"ז סי' לט וכן מדרכי משה בשם איסור והיתר הארוך כלל לט וכן מבואר שם בט"ז סק"א.

אולם בט"ז סי' צה סק"ג מה שהוכיח מהגמ' ושו"ע שטעם בשר בדגים אינו אוסר את הדגים (ובט"ז גופא הובאו כמה צדדים אבל כך העתיק הבאר היטב מסקנת הט"ז), אולם שם לא מיירי לענין דגים ובשר שנתבשלו ממש אלא לענין דגים שנתבשלו בקדירה בן יומה של בשר, ועי' גם בחת"ס על הש"ך ריש סי' קטז מה שהביא מהארוך להקל בבן יומו, אבל כל הנידון שם בארוך ובט"ז ובמהרש"ל שהובא שם ובחת"ס הכל רק מצד פליטת כלים אבל איסור בעין ליכא למאן דמתיר.

ויעוי' בכה"ח או"ח סי' קעג סק"ח בשם הפ"ת לענין נגיעה שאין חוששין שנדבק מן הבשר, אבל באופן שנשאר בעין מן האיסור, דהיינו מהחלב שנתבשל עם הדגים בזה לא מיירי הפ"ת, וכמבואר ריש סי' צה ביו"ד דבאופן שנשאר ממשות האיסור ואין ס' כנגדו לא אמרי' סברא זו לענין בשר בחלב.

ואולי באמת הטעם שלא נהגו להקל בזה משום דמצרפינן כאן הספק שמא יש ס' במאכל החדש שבמכשיר כנגד הגבינה שנשארה ונדבקה במאכל הזה החדש, ובצירוף דעת הרמ"א ואחרונים להתיר דג בחלב וכן דעת המג"א באו"ח סי' קעג (הובא גם במשנ"ב שם) שנוטה להתיר האידנא אפי' דג בבשר, ואולי מצרפים גם שיש אחרונים שנקטו שהוא ט"ס בב"י וממילא לא נקטו כהב"י בזה מטעם שגרסו אחרת בדבריו (עי' סי' פז ביו"ד בד"מ אות ד ט"ז סק"ג וש"ך סק"ה וחידושי הגהות שם בטור אות ד), ואולי סוברים דכיון דלהשו"ע ל"א חנ"נ בשאר איסורים וכ"ש בסכנתא שאינו מטעם איסור כלל, א"כ טעם הדגים שמתחילה בטל בס' בטעם המאכל שבישל לאחר מכן, ולא אמרי' שהגבינה שנשארה במכשיר היא חנ"נ.

וכ"ז כתבתי רק כדי ללמד זכות על ההכשרים שלא עוררו על הענין, ואולי יש גם קצת לימוד זכות אם נימא דהאידנא יש מבני ספרד שהושפעו ממנהגי בני אשכנז כידוע, וממילא קצת קיל ענין מקום שנהגו האידנא, אפשר שיש מקום קצת להקל בזה, לומר שאם רוצה לסמוך להקל בזה אין כאן שינוי מנהג המקום כ"כ, וכ"ז הוא קולא גדולה כי לא מצאתי בשום מקום דבר כזה שאדם ישנה מנהגו מחומרא לקולא מכח טענה זו, וצל"ע המציאות בזה אם באמת יש מבני ספרד שנוהגים כהרמ"א בזה בשעת הדחק, ויל"ע למעשה.

ואולי הדבר המועדף יותר הוא שרבני הקהילות הנוהגים כהשו"ע יגלו דעתם בפני ההשגחות הפועלות שיעמידו מכשיר נפרד להנוהגים כדעת השו"ע.

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

Those who are in the habit of relaxing the cameras regarding Gentile milk can certainly lighten up on this, and even those who are strict about the cameras from the main point of law can lighten up on this, and we found someone who was careful about this and maybe he is of a Hasidic degree. Sources: Yeavi' in Rama C. Keto SA regarding a Gentile who milked before Ketan Yisrael Damboer there...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Those who are in the habit of making light of the cameras regarding Gentile milk can certainly make light of this, and even those who are strict with the cameras of the main law can make light of it, and we found someone who was careful about this and perhaps he is of a Hassidic degree.

Sources: Yaoi' in Rama C. Keto SA regarding a Gentile who milked before a little Israel Damboar where the little one is faithful, and we were nine years old as explained there in DM and SH and 16 in the long name.

However, the main issue in Rama there is the manner in which the gentile is milked in Beit Yisrael and the issue is what is the fence of mirat in this, since this delanin benefits mirat from the little one since the little one may discover his deed, and as we found fences similar to this in the laws of singularity, but in such a way that there is no mirat, such as in the case of your question If the gentile milked in his private dairy and gave milk of his own to the little one, this already enters into the judgment of loyalty to the little one.

And Yaoi' in Shach C. Kich Skalg Degdar Mir'at is a strong case of a trust that preserves a benefit for a small person, afi' in a daurita, af that a small one does not have a fiduciary in a daurita except with the testimony of a woman.

And Ya'oi' at the beginning of a response in parentheses, which he brought in the name of wisdom, Adam Klal Sez S.D. who wrote that even the Gentile does not know that it is forbidden to Israel and does not belong to Miretat MM Naman Dain, he was afraid of it, but to spurn him lest he should change, and to spurn a little faithful one, and they said in the name of the Gamuma Yaski The deceased did not rely on Katan and Tsa Akal HaKha, and the Fathai concluded a response to his dependence on the issue of whether Gentile milk is prohibited in the matter of Minin.

And in the S.C. after that, the latter group brought the last ones from the Hardbz 6. C. Alf Kamez and the Parach. As a Nesach and ACP for the Ashkenazi people is prohibited from the law and is close to a vow from the Dauriita Akkad, and we were to understand that the proofreader at the beginning of Tshuva (and there is evidence that there may be some of the brackets that are from the Mohar Iserlan Moilana with the Jerusalem addition) that the P.D. that sees it as not lawful, Israel sees that the decree did not apply, but that the decree did apply, and there is an external verification that the milk is kosher, and therefore the AAG Devdarbanan rely on Katan as explained in Rama 3. Kakhiz end of sg in a way that I will not uphold Isura, MM There is no clarification here that there is no prohibition Durban because the Durban ban has already come into effect, and it is as it were condemned by the dispute of the arbitrators regarding the cameras of the day.

And it was found that in the Pethai Tshuva, the legal advisors who make it strict to eat dairy products today only from the AdaH court and the Bnei Brak court because of the camera concerns will have to get stricter in the case of your question, but those who make it easy to eat mashers that rely on cameras will also be allowed in your way, Dahalev Goy no Considered that it is forbidden to keep it as impure milk.

However, this assertion of the Fatash Magyar is very puzzling, since this is already explained in the Rama'a and they rule that in the manner of Mir'at, a small one is as faithful as a large one, and yet in the face of a small one there is no derivation of heathen milk as in the face of a large one, so whether it is because we do not guess at her, whether because of David the Gentile is not a mirat, and because of that he considered his milk not before Israel, but even in such a way that there is a great name of Israel, it would not be useful, and such a side did not come to the minds of the judges, and the HA did not have such a side. And so the difficulty is, why in the case of a large guard there is no decree at all and in a small guard only a clarification is considered.

To this it is possible to say that the above-mentioned sage's strictness is for himself in order to stay away from any fear of prohibition, and lest there be a small fire that the Lord is not so harsh, Yaoi' in the above-mentioned Rama'a concerning a small testimony, but aa to settle yes, Dahzi Man Gabra Rabba Damshid Avtaria is the wisdom of a person.

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

I entered a reputable store that, due to the savings in the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc.,...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I went into a respectable store that, due to the savings on the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc., etc. It is possible for a dunam to have a right that according to what they say they do everything legally and do not need an overseer at all.

But still since it was recently published about serious obstacles that happened in places where there is no kosher supervisor, therefore it would be better if there was public awareness of how to treat a store where all products are under the supervision of the Kosher.

It should be noted that sometimes it is indeed impossible to point out a prohibition that is clear on the part of Gadri Halacha to buy there, if the seller observes the Torah and mitzvot (and the Shu'a and Rama'a find that the main point of the law is relaxed even in matters more than that, cf. C. Kitt SB and SG and 37, and EE in the words of the Shu'a and Rama concerning the law of food that is written kosher, as well as the law of letters in Hebrew where no Gentiles know how to write), but in reality there are many obstacles in such places, especially today that the food industry is industrial and includes the use of many workers and supplies .

And so as long as you don't know the seller personally, he is God-fearing and knows Halacha and knows what he is doing, what can certainly be said is that it is better to buy in a supervised place.
(And we noted in the Rama that things that were held to be problematic do not rely on the holdings, and also in the Rama in Baha 3:17 72, and Yaoi' of the Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of the slaughters and brought the 22).

Below I will mention some of the obstacles that can be found in such a place:
A.
The discharge falls into the pulp
When you prepare a pulp, you often oblige yourself to secrete challah without knowing it, and besides that, for example, sometimes you secrete challah from a pulp because of doubt, and after that another doubt is created, such as when you join a basket between two pulps from which each of them was secreted separately when it was in a doubtful proportion, and now there is a certain proportion between the two, And from the judgment one has to set aside challah again, and it is possible to fail in this due to lack of knowledge.

B.
Unrolling and immersing the dishes
There is no Bedaz inspection on the dishes, even in stores that write that all the products are under the inspection of the Bedz, and not on the way in which they are immersed and disgusted, and as I mentioned in one of the adjacent answers, there is a halachic problem buying from a seller who does not adhere to legal immersion and immersion (even if he is not his son).

And of course there are sometimes also dishes that are destroyed to such an extent that they prohibit cooking in them, and those who deal with the kitchen and cooking without knowing the Halacha may fail.

third.
There are products that do not require kosher
There are products that are practiced that do not require kosher, such as sugar and coffee, and it is possible that you at home are also careful about these products to buy only kosher, but it is possible that the seller is not careful about this, that is, it is not impossible that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, this statement does not mean products that do not need kosher (in the opinion of the seller), as long as it is not stated otherwise (and maybe even if we ask the seller he will answer that "everyone does not follow this").

d.
Worm inspection
There are types of foods that claim to test for worms as explained in the Shoah in the Book of Worms, and even on behalf of kosher it says to test, and it is a problem to use products that have not been legally tested, even if the products are under the supervision of the Bedz.

God.
Fish inspection
On behalf of the BDS (up to the last time I was updated), fish sold with skin are required to be tested at home, to check that they have scales, so even if all the products are under the supervision of the BDS, it still does not mean that the seller has done the inspection legally.

Also, on behalf of the Bedz Rabbi Landa, the official instruction on the salmon fish is that the skin is problematic and requires care at home, so even if the seller bought all the products with good care, it is still impossible to know if he took care of the skin properly.

and.
Blood clotting in poultry
The problem of blood clotting in poultry is still not eliminated by kosher.
Although I don't know even when there is kosher on the restaurant if the supervisor oversees it.

And the same with regard to the condemnation of eggs that do not have kosher marks (kad and had) those who are careful about this at home and buy ready-made challah at the store, obviously the supervisor of the mafia is not careful about this, but in such a case where there are some doubts here it is easier (i.e. by way of answer) What brought in this, and there are also instructions from our time arbitrators in this).

G.
Akaum cooking
Even if all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, it still does not guarantee that there is no illegal cooking, and as we know, a person forgot that hot seed and Ishmael is cheaper, and in any case it is found in factories that use them as laborers, when significant manpower is needed, and of course in bakeries and restaurants they are observed working, and the big problem It's not the regular use of them, dela mashui inish nafshaya sharia, but the bigger problem is all kinds of voices that are not agreed that the seller can make it easier for himself (or make it easier for the attribution of the workers in the places that the arbitrators have taken that they don't have enough attribution) and when there is a kosher who oversees it, he is more responsible.

H.
Annihilated cooking
In this regard, not all of the koshers are careful not to let the mashomed cook, but in places where "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" there is certainly no guarantee that they are careful about this.

ninth.
Meat in milk
Even in places that promise that "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" which can legally oblige them if they are found to be liars, but they do not promise not to cook meat products with milk, or meat products in milk vessels and vice versa (and that there is no promise that they do not cook fish with meat or fish with milk for those who are strict about it).

Likewise, there are also laws which products are allowed to be placed next to other products, and there are laws of cancellation and there is no cancellation, and the taste is not void, and all these things are not sufficient for those who are not knowledgeable in Halacha.

And likewise, sometimes there is a meat/dairy din for the food, and the seller will not necessarily indicate this because in his opinion the food is not considered meat, or he does not see the need to indicate this, and when there is no supervision I went to the store it is impossible to know about all of this.

J.
A touch of wine
Even in places where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there can be a person who does not observe Shabbat who touches the wine, and there are ways that the wine is prohibited even when it is mixed in a stew as explained in the Shoah, and in the case of the Shabbos if he touched the wine before entering the stew, and a Shabbat person who touches the wine is very problematic.

11
seventh
Even in a store where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there is still no guarantee that they do not sell products that have the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that those who are strict about certain things such as foreign crops or northern and southern prairies or cultivated on the seventh (and harvested on the eighth) should not expect to have information about this, burden In most cases, in kosher, things are monitored and the necessary information is provided to the buyer of the product.

12.
negligence at work
Even if the seller's intention is pure that all the products will be under the supervision of the Bedz, if he brings in chefs (cooks) who are not irash and gives them the products to prepare ready-made dishes from it, if there is no supervision and supervision as usual, there is still no guarantee that they will not introduce other substances, and they touch the matter It turns out tastier so that they will continue to use their service, and even if according to Halacha it is sometimes allowed because he is a craftsman or because he is in the House of Israel, and there are many differences of opinion about this (Vai'oi' in S. Kich s. ), mm It is certainly better to buy from a place where there is supervision, since it is known that there are obstacles in this (as the aforementioned RMA said).

13.
Sending meat and the like without a seal
There are foods that must not be sent with goy or moshmood without a seal or two seals such as meat, eg in S. Kih, and there are ways that it is prohibited even in retrospect, and it is possible to fail in this even if all the principle products come from the supervision of the Bedz.

Hand.
Suspect to eat normal kosher
Even if the seller is obvious to the eye as a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot, mm if he also eats things that are rabbinically kosher known as regular kosher, or other koshers that according to Din AA can be trusted, and when he arrives at the place and is served dishes with these koshers, he eats them, And these koshers are held as kosher by him without fear, in any case his presumption of kosher must be discussed with the Didan, i.e. even if he says that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, since in his opinion everything is considered kosher Galat, in any case it is not so simple that he has a presumption of kosher on it (I.C. Kih Sof Sach and I' further C. Kit Sach, and IA in the words of the Shu'a regarding the fact that there is no loyalty in the rapists about their wine since they themselves are not careful, and it should be discussed whether it is appropriate to learn from this), in particular if it is a restaurant that naturally It involves many challenges and requires all kinds of materials that can sometimes be easily obtained from all kinds of places, and there are many permit instructions that a person can order for himself when he knows that without this permit order he will not be able to bring food tomorrow to his regular and non-regular customers, and everything that is needed is not always readily available in good kosher.

Tu.

Relying on the loyalty of women and minors in Halacha
It is necessary to add a dish of problems in the trust of a woman and a minor in certain cases as explained in the Shoah and the Rama'a SS C. 133 SG and SD and it is necessary to note that all this is strictly adhered to.
By the way, I quoted the Rama's words, where it should be noted a model of loyalty of people who do not follow the grammar of the Halacha. As for the grammar of the Halacha, it is discussed on its own and Ish.

16
Unseasoned chicken or meat
Even if you buy poultry and meat under the supervision of the Badz, but if you buy them from the Badz when they have not yet been salted and roasted and the seller prepares them himself (which can be profitable for those who buy in quantities), there can be problems with salting that prohibit the meat even in retrospect, such as if stock drips on the meat in ways Some, either blood dripped from the outside during roasting, or it stayed for a few days without salting, and there are many legal details in this.

17.
Leaven on which Passover passed
It is possible that a product is perfectly kosher in the Badatz kosher, but after Pesach it will be forbidden in pleasure, if they did not sell chametz, and the seller did not commit except that the products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and if he is not a Yarash (and you do not know him) lest he think that A. to come at him with claims, also if you are careful not to trust all the sales that are practiced due to various concerns, and even if the seller is an expert, how can you trust him as long as you don't know that he is meticulous, (and this also does not state the law of oxygen of transgressors, etc., since this is a complete permit for him), although for this reason one can withdraw from the hodai, and if it is a dish that only provides a mixture of chametz, it must be sold to a Gentile, it is very easy, as there are three sides to this, to allow it, and there is only doubt as to whether it is chametz that is not sold at all (without additional sides of a mixture and of that sold to a gentile in a Didan sale) there is a side in the rulings that it is permissible, although it should be noted that there are also those who are careful in the case of a chametz mixture that is sold as above.

Summary of things
Some of the things from the legal point of view are not required to be worried about, but since in the reality of a store there is no supervisor there and you don't know the seller and the employees if they are God-fearing and punctual and knowledgeable in the Halacha, it is very possible that mistakes can be made, and therefore it is certainly possible to say that it is recommended in terms of kosher to buy at the more elegant place.

It should be noted that without a doubt there are restaurants of kosher and Jewish Jewish people who are more strict about lightening than other shops with kosher supervision, but I did not come here in this article but to offer a suggestion of things and concerns that may exist in some shops of this type.

All of the above does not exempt the person who prepares food alone at home from finding out all the laws concerning it, because just as in a restaurant one can fail in all these obstacles, so does the person who prepares food at home.

And we will end with the words of the Shoah (regarding Gentile artisan apothecaries' tools if there is a fear of them breaking the prohibition) and the soul will feel that these words lead to purity and cleanliness.

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

Here is the rule that when everything is in the water there is a nullification in the six, therefore in our case the six against the spoon is enough, and the spoon did not prohibit the other vessels. However, the rule is that wherever a piece is void at sixty, the piece itself is prohibited, therefore if the spoon was a day old then it is...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here is the rule that when everything is in the water there is a nullification in the six, therefore in our case the six against the spoon is enough, and the spoon did not prohibit the other vessels.

However, the rule is that wherever a piece is void at sixty, the piece itself is prohibited, therefore if the spoon was a day old, then it is obligated to dishonor it, but since it is not a day old, it is not obligated to dishonor it, but to begin with, the meat spoon must be dishonored after 44 hours have passed The fall (because within 24 hours of the prohibition made by cooking or boiling does not benefit the abomination).

In retrospect, if they did not disgust this spoon (in the case that it was not a day old and was not required to be disgusted by the law), if they returned and used it for meat within 24 hours (in the case that it was not soaked in water together with the meat spoon against the dairy spoons), everything is forbidden, and if they used it for dairy In hindsight it was not banned.

27 is explained in Yod 3, 36, 33 and 34 and No. 2 there (except that there it is about a matter that is boiling and about a matter in which there was a stew inside the vessel, and I. nearby).

And it is further explained in Shekh C. Zeg Skag Shemen Hadin that it was permissible to cook in this spoon between meat and milk, but it is customary to make it strict not to cook anything in it until the spoon is prepared according to Shchak Rama C. Side S.

(And Mm do not say here that you will eat a man for a matter that we consider everything to be chilled, because you will eat a man only for a matter that does not prohibit everything, but is not useful so that they do not need any training, dishing it up with boiling food that has fallen into chilled food from shelled meat, as explained in the rulings C. Zeg .

And apart from this, there are opinions among the arbitrators that they do not say at all that a woman will die, but that she will never be swallowed by Ham and Nasr, as in the Marsh'al Yesh Sh Chulin P.H. Sis and Ei' Sh.S. C. Ka SKI, and the first ones differed on this G.C. And there are some of the first who are of the opinion to be stricter like the opinion of the Maharashal, see what he brought to this in the Shu'at of the Maharasham HH C. No.

And on the other hand, for the methods that consider that even with a vessel they say teath a man, for the matter under discussion if they say that it is all over when they say tha a man to forbid everything in such a way that there is a fat word in the Shoah C. Ka 37 that means no, and I. "4 HA C. Ked letter 1. There is a dispute about this, but for our purposes, they said that the prohibition is the taste of the dish. It is more severe if the dish forbids a dish with a sauce or a dish that prohibits a dish without sauce when it has an oily taste, p. ק C. ק ק קא שקחק על סעז זים there).

And with regard to the issue of whether a vessel can prohibit a vessel or not, everything that is discussed is about dry vessels, but in the way that there is water with the vessel, a vessel is prohibited. "B.

And in fact, we need to review this further, because in some matters related to this, we have to settle on the details of the methods in this, such as the law of a pulsing vessel, and the law of a man's body in a vessel, and the law of a second vessel that boils, a hand that dislikes itself, and more.

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

To begin with, it should be disgusted lest it be forbidden by a boiling prohibition, and in retrospect it should not be felt. And their training was made possible by a hot infusion from a first vessel. Mekorot, Rama'a Jud C. Kaka. and their training, etc., as the Mish Sh. Shech C. Kaka Skid.

To begin with, it should be disgusted lest it be forbidden by a boiling prohibition, and in retrospect it should not be felt.

And their training was made possible by a hot infusion from a first vessel.

Mekorot, Rama'a Jud C. Kaka.
and their training, etc., as the Mish Sh. Shech C. Kaka Skid.

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

Yeavi' in Yod C. Kakab sv that it's just dishes, but in hindsight, if he cooked the food in it, it's permissible because just dishes are not born of a day, mm. It's forbidden to say to a Gentile, I cooked vegetables in your pot, and in the beginning of the answer there, the SKA added in the name of the clothing that survived in my innovations Law for the Jud...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Yeavi' in Yod C. Kakab sv that it's just dishes, but in hindsight, if he cooked the food in it, it's permissible because just dishes are not born of a day, mm. It's forbidden to say to a Gentile, I cooked vegetables in your pot, and in the beginning of the answer there, the SKA added in the name of the clothing that survived in my innovations Laws according to Rabbi C. Noah Shafi' if the Gentile does it himself for the needs of Israel or for the needs of the people of the city, the majority of whom are Israelis, it is possible to desecrate, and in this way it should also be discussed regarding the use of a vessel that is not dipped if there is such a concern, that the renter is obliged to dip, since the renter of eating utensils from his possessions is obliged to dip As explained in C. K. K. S. H. and in Tos. 17. A. A. B. D. E. Abel, and even though in hindsight the food is not prohibited as in the RMA at the end of the above C. MM, a model must be discussed with regard to the buyer who considered the buyer initially in this way The aforementioned survived on the way of the Bushi.

And what the Shu'a discussed there regarding art tools of Yao'ish there in his words that what is being discussed does not pertain to hired tools that pass from hand to hand but to the special tool for the craftsman of Yao'ish and KL.

And since sugar is generally kosher, there are various substances involved in the sugar industry that are not kosher, such as food coloring.

And the Shu'a there are 60 pieces of wisdom that stayed in a Gentile's house, and there is a concern that the Dihan in the soup with his own utensils may have Gentile utensils in them, and for our purposes we don't know where he rented the device from, and there are many renters who do not keep Tom, and there are renters who drink "But they are probably renting for any reason, this should be discussed anyway.

And from the words of Rama C. K. K. K. K. S. A. Why in the jar and in the thing that you will use in the cold, do not fear the main part of the law because of this fear that it will be mixed with broth.

And regarding the fact that with regard to Marda there are in the rulings that took a retroactive consideration of mm in a sweet food for which there is no real need, there is no retroactive consideration. The HaTas took his glosses to the Shu'a, and the words of the New Testament were brought there in Pethai Tshuva SKD and by Ephraim.

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

It seems to be allowed without fear. Sources: The main reason for this permission is as explained in A. the previous answers that in any way that it is evident that the blood is human blood there is no prohibition in it.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It seems to be allowed without fear.

Sources:
The main reason for this permission is, as explained in the previous answers, that in any way that it is evident that the blood is human blood, there is no prohibition in it. Paz.

And likewise, it must be discussed to add two more sides to this, the first that this blood is mixed with toothpaste and the second that he puts something in his mouth that is less than a lesson without swallowing, and this is not simply for the prohibition Afi' in Isorin, and A. in 16 in Yod C. C "8 What discusses whether it is to be compared to the Lord Ta'anit.

And to the body of the matter discussed about tasting with prohibition, the meaning of the 16th opinion there in Rish C. Tzach is that it should not be made easy if it is put into the mouth, and it should be noted that the same is said in the Shach B. C. Kah Skachad in the name of the Rabbis C. Rafah tasting with prohibition It was not allowed at all and since it is also explained in the words of the Rama in the name of Sai'5, and what is the gist of the permission that I wrote is for the reason that it is evident that it belongs to a person whose permission is sufficient as explained in its place, and other additions are only to remove the fear from the mind of Rashi who forbids blood in a way that is obvious as explained in its place, However, Shashi Rashi did not rule on the halacha.

And really, if the prohibition is mixed with toothpaste, it is easier for the sake of taste, and Yaoi' in the opening of the answer to Rish C. Cet.

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

(As a preface to the answer, it should be emphasized that the subject of the answer is not the way a considerable amount of oil fell, and it is not about the way the dairy vessel was boiling, and it is not about the way it fell on food). Answer: There is a place to ease and the easer has someone to trust, and however in our case that means that it is...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

(As a preface to the answer, it should be emphasized that the subject of the answer is not the way a considerable amount of oil fell, and it is not about the way the dairy vessel was boiling, and it is not about the way it fell on food).

Answer:
There is room for lightening and the lightening has someone to rely on, but in our case that means that it is a spark of any kind of oil and not about a drop of oil that is actually in it.

And as for whether it is aggravating to qualify the dairy vessel for Shofra Damilta, even if the vessel is made of a material that is aggravated by its disgust where there is a charge of abomination, mm regarding Didan that the training is for Shofara Damilta, it is certainly not necessary to aggravate and throw away the vessel, and it is good to do a boiling infusion three times.

And it should be noted that if there is a complete infusion of meat from a first vessel in such a way that the kiloh stops (that is, there was no direct connection of kiloh from the meat to my milk) is not so serious, and even if there was more than one drop if it was in such a way that the kiloh stopped, it is not clear to Dinah that the vessel must be thrown away In a tool that is not abominable, and some have written Efi' in this to make it easier to molest him three times.

Sources:
Regarding Tzir, the Rama'a mentioned that it forbids the place where it fell (cit. Yod C. Tsa), but regarding a single boiling drop, the Rama'a Gophia in the ways of Moshe (C. Zeg Saskatb) made light because the drop had lost its power, and the part of it, and there are contradictions in this in the opinion of the Shachak, and many recent scholars were about to justify this contradiction in the Shachak (including the Farah and the Famag and the Ku'at and the Farah and more, i. MM in this), but what emerges from the words of some of them is the spirit of things, which was a shame for them that instead of assuming that the heat remains even after the drop falls, it is difficult to make light of it, and therefore in our case that it is a drop of boiling oil, the reality of this is that, since the oil in time boils very much while it is on the fire , (and in some of the latter, the matter of division is also mentioned, that there is a difference if it is on the fire), and if there is a real thing in it, its image is more like a lid that a real saucer has in it, which is explained there, and if it is a drop in any proportion of an oil spark, there is reason to say that it is a general The way the Shekh acknowledges the ways of Moses.

With regard to a normal infusion in such a way that the kilochah was ruled out in the RMA and the PMG and the latter in the KM who extended it and the Akhmal, and there are recent ones who took the decision that the kilochah was ruled out as a second tool or that the KILOH is a serious matter for considering it as a first tool, and A. C. Tsev, vei "Hats Yod C" Tza that he kihl infusion of GP Efi' in a pottery in such a way that the kilochah stopped.

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