If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it. Sources: Ya'oi in the 12th century, C. Rasag SKKA, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take Israel out by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the light is related to religion and means a mitzvah and is not an apostate or a rebel to anger, it is obligatory to light it.

Sources: Yeavi' in the 20th century, C. Rasg Skaka, who brought an opinion that the foreigner can take out Israel by lighting a fire for him, and made it difficult on behalf of the latter since there is no mission to a gentile, and it is explained to me that this problem is not wrong in the fact that the foreigner is lit, and therefore Israel is not a Torah observant And a mitzvah, since it is not exceeded by the laws of mission, can be used as a messenger to light the Shabbat candles (and 20s if there is an obligation on him), and 20s for the practices there that can Efi bless the lighting of a candle by a Gentile who fulfills a complete mitzvah in this.

And we will see further from the fact that the main obligation to light the candle is because of peace in the home, so for this matter the obligation is the same for a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot as for a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot.

Although I have seen those who have commented that there is another problem in getting out of the obligation to light a candle by someone who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot if she does not mean a mitzvah at all but something completely different, (and it is true that those who believe that by a Gentile they go out in a peshita also go out in this), and apparently this discussion also belongs For those who believe that the Darbanan mitzvos do not require an intention (and I extended this in another answer), a model for their KIL method (and there is a dispute about this in the B.I. To doubt that it is considered that he intends not to go out of duty, and in any case it is necessary to discuss whether it is appropriate to exclude others according to such a party and whether it is at all appropriate to appoint a mission in such a way, and I. C. Reto Sabv that there is no interest in an Amen after Epicurus because his intention is not for heaven, 2 and in the Bible there that if he heard the whole blessing, he answers Amen, but the matter of going out of my duty is a bit more problematic, and each one needs to check what he believes, and the AGM, O.H.B.C. That the mother has an affinity for religion and wants to be good, but does not understand and thinks that what she does is enough (and also feels satisfaction and a good feeling in what she does, because without that there is another problem. Those who believe that the mitzvah of Darbanan AA to leave without intention has a problem with leaving someone who does something that is not for the mitzvah At all), it turns out that there is no need to fear more than that, and everything depends on the matter.

And with regard to Kiddush, it is a bit more problematic to issue Yadah Kiddush on the wine and even on the portion from a person who does not observe the Torah and mitzvot.

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

ראיתי מי שהציע בפני הגרמ"מ קארפ שברכה זו נתקנה רק עבור מי שמשכים (כלשון התנא דבי אליהו פכ"א [שהוא המקור לברכה זו] וישכים ויאמר) ולא למי שהתעורר לאחר זמן תפילה, והסכים עמו הרב שליט"א. ומ"מ לדינא יל"ע אם לנהוג כן, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

ראיתי מי שהציע בפני הגרמ"מ קארפ שברכה זו נתקנה רק עבור מי שמשכים (כלשון התנא דבי אליהו פכ"א [שהוא המקור לברכה זו] וישכים ויאמר) ולא למי שהתעורר לאחר זמן תפילה, והסכים עמו הרב שליט"א.

ומ"מ לדינא יל"ע אם לנהוג כן, דהרי נזכר בלשון הברכה שבתד"א גם להיות ירא שמים בגלוי ובסתר ואטו מי שאינו ירא שמים אינו יכול לברך ברכה זו, וידוע שתחילת הברכה אינו מנוסח הברכה עצמו כמו שהארכתי בתשובה אחרת שנדפסה בשו"ת עם סגולה רק שהביא הב"י בשם שבלי הלקט בשם ר"ש לאומרה יחד עם הברכה [דהיינו לומר את כל הנוסח בתד"א] כדי להרגיל האדם להיות יר"ש בגלוי ובסתר, והגרח"ק ע"פ התוס' בפסחים וברכות נקט שתחילת הברכה מעיקר הדין הוא מאתה עד שלא נברא העולם.

ועוד יל"ע דהיכן מצינו שהברכה תלויה בזמן קימתו של האדם, דבשלמא זמן לאמירת הברכה מצינו אבל שיהיה מותנה בזמן הקימה היכן מצינו, שברכה שאדם קם בזמן מסויים מתחייב לאומרה ואם קם בזמן אחר אינו מתחייב לאומרה, ואמנם המעביר שינה אם קם בלילה אינו מתחייב לאומרה, אבל שם הברכה על השינה ועל זמן השינה, ולדידן המעביר שינה אפשר שהיא ברכה על מנהגו של עולם כשאר ברכות השחר (ובניעור כל הלילה מחמירים לצאת מאחר).

ועוד יל"ע דבלשון הברכה עצמה לא מצינו כלל רמז לענין ההשכמה, דהוא ברכה על קידוש השם, ולמה לא נזכר בנוסח הברכה דבר על ההשכמה, ואפי' אם נימא שהוא ברכה לכל יום על קידוש השם של אותו היום, אבל למה שלא יהיה דינו כזמן של שאר ברכות השחר לכל דעה לפי שיטתה.

ועוד יל"ע דהשכמה הוא מי שמקדים לקום, כדמוכח בפסחים ד' וביומא דף ע"ו עי"ש, וא"כ לפ"ז יוכל לברך רק מי שמקדים הרבה לקום, וא"כ איזה שיעור נאמר בדבר.

ועוד יל"ע דהרי המשנ"ב דן לגבי ברכות השחר אחר ד' שעות וכן דנו הפוסקים על ק"ש לאחר ג' וד' שעות וברכותיה לאחר ג' וד' שעות ושמונ"ע לאחר ד' שעות ולאחר חצות, ולמה לא הזכיר נידון זה של ברכת לעולם יהא אדם למי שקם ממיטתו אחר ד' שעות, ומ"מ לא ראינו אינו ראיה גמורה (ועי' ערוה"ש ס"ס נב שהוסיף ברכות שלא הזכירם המשנ"ב שם לדון בהם אם יכול לאומרן אחר התפילה).

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

Everyone who is busy with the feast in succession blesses the vine at the end. Sources: Here is the definition of the exemption of the rest of the mishkin in the blessing of the wine is the definition of the main and tefel, because the rest of the mishkin is teflin to the wine (cf. MB C. Kad Skag and in the Hal Shem D. H. Yain), so for our purposes the question is whether he started ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Everyone who is busy with the feast in succession blesses the vine at the end.

Sources: Here is the definition of the exemption of the rest of the mishkin in the blessing of the wine is the definition of the main and tefel, because the rest of the mishkin is teflin to the wine (cf. MB C. Kad Skag and in the Hal Shem D. H. Yain), so for our purposes the question is whether he started Mainly and continued to treat and already passed a digestion class from the main point.

And Yaoi' in the 20th century C. was strict about the blessing of the food that the deceased wrote, it seems that he came to an epiphany if he assumes that in that eating alone there was already a lesson to digest and he would return to being hungry and after some time he ate more of the remaining kinds of foods and because of these things he is not hungry and brother "If he remembers that he did not bless in the HMZ after the first eating, he cannot bless any more in the HMZ that he has canceled that eating.
After he had finished his first meal, he was distracted from eating more, but if it was all during one meal, such as what is customary at large meals, he will sit for several hours, and sometimes there is a degree of digestion from eating a morsel that he ate in the beginning, but he will be able to bless the food at the end, because during this time he will eat butterflies and kisinin And drinking everything is one meal and we will never digest the first food.

In this regard, the 15th taught that if a blessing begins with wine, if with water, the definition is that the treatment is included with the main part of the blessing, and the blessing includes all the eating together, but if he stopped the wine feast and then desired to drink water, he would not be able to finally bless the vine after the digestion lesson of wine.

And it will be explained further in the Maga (which is the source of the Mishnav) that the definition in this is that he is engaged in drinking and parapheras and as was well brought up in the well, the same in this regard Didan G.C. He was busy drinking during this time, but drinking water to quench his thirst when the need arises does not bless the vine and so on.

However, there is room for wonder since the blessing on the vine does not belong to the water at all, and how can one bless the blessing on the vine after someone who has already passed the wine digestion class, but a model should be noted regarding the blessing of the food that can be blessed even though he only continued to drink and drink is the one who is actually condemned, since In the opinion of some rashonim, the blessing of the food is to be blessed in retrospect.

However, there is still a division between the regularities of a meal. It is not considered that he now drank of the wine.

However, in fact, we are reminded of the differences in the rulings on the matter of rulings on wine, as brought by the BHL C. Kad there, the opinion of the 17th that only the drinking of wine of a ruling exempts the rest of the mishkin, as well as in the Mishnav C. Rah Ska'3 which the Mishnav mentioned B Regarding a final blessing, if he ruled on the wine, it is also beneficial for the rest of the Mishkin that were brought later that were not before him, and in fact it seems that he can bless, since apparently the words of the Mishnab regarding the matter of fat also belong to the matter of wine.

It must be emphasized here that the discussion is about both the first blessing and the last blessing, a model for a mouthful of Mitzino that if it passed a digestion rate, the arbitrators differed on whether or not the first blessing applies to it.
And it should be noted that on this side, too, he urges to say that if a person drank wine and continued with the rest of the mishkin and passed a digestion rate from the wine, he will have to bless the water from that time, and i.e. in the explanation of the halacha C. Kad 45 and the custom, that it is good for him to bless the wine from the vine at the meal in order to remove the rest of the mishkin, And it's a bit pressing that the whole solution is only until the wine's digestion rate has passed, and it's pushing some of the entire island to say that here the constancy is because of the palate, and that's it.

And it should also be noted that the group of Shinorim regarding the matter of 4 cups of Havdalah, if he blesses each cup, and there are different opinions on this, and the Akhmal, and despite the opinion that he blesses the first cup, consider the other cups as a continuation of that, even though he passed a digestion lesson, since the entire Haggadah is about drinking. According to the Rabbinical Rabbinical Law, there is a single word and a single mitzvah in the anfi of her soul, because he was a distraction, not a problem for my blessings. H. C. testifies about the RIF, that its taste is because of four cups, since each and every Mitzvah in the nostrils of her soul, he has to bless the creator of the fruit of the vine, he ate a throne and a throne, and this is the reason for the RIF, because Afi' did not stop between them and did not distract him Congratulations to the Harif.

It should also be noted in this regarding the break on the Seder night between Kiddush and the meal, and they brought it in the name of the judges of our times (as it seems from the Garsha 61) Damachion, and everything is an order of the Seder night mitzvot, not counting the break between Kiddush and the meal.

And for the condemned body that you mentioned about what Shane fired Shaar Mishkin, one should also pay attention to some of the details that this law has, namely if he determined himself to drink wine and if there was an ACP Shaar Mishkin before him at the time of the blessing (ibid. If he did not drink a full glass of the wine, he went into the delivery of blessings as explained in the explanation of the halachic law C. Kad there.

Regarding the question of whether it follows from the words of the Mishnab that there is a way to bless a creator of souls over wine, the answer is that although sometimes it turns out that he only blesses a creator of souls here (according to the conditions explained above), but he does not bless a creator of souls over wine, rather he lost the last blessing over the wine because And he has already gone through a digestive lesson after drinking the wine, and does not bless the creator of souls except for the new charge of the wine he drank afterwards.

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

It seems that there is a sign of a curse in this, and as I explained in the answer to the consecration of a white child, any mitzvah that was not made possible by something coming from heaven is a sign of a curse, and since here we have already gotten rid of the ignition if the weather at the time of the ignition was without wind and rain, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It seems that there is a sign of a curse in this, and as I extended in the answer to the sanctification of a white child, any mitzvah that was not made possible by something coming from heaven is a sign of a curse, and since here one is already disposed of from the lighting if the weather at the time of the lighting was without wind and rain, from any place even in the sukkah, one will be extinguished when they fell rains, and yet there is a sign of a curse there, and despite the fact that here he died and there is a Mitzvah of Mm, there is no Mitzvah of the Chosen One, and there is no proper publication of Nisa, and the Mishnab even resorted to returning it and burning it, and it certainly did not detract from the other methods in the evidence that I brought in my answer to the matter of Kiddush Levana, and also in my answer regarding the blessing of priests.

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

In the case that there was no oil in front of him at the time of the blessing, he repeats and blesses, and in the case that there was oil in front of him and he had his opinion about it if he needs to use it, he does not repeat and bless, and in the case that he had oil in front of him but did not have his opinion on it specifically, the simplicity of the explanation that he repeats and blesses and so...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the case that there was no oil in front of him at the time of the blessing, he repeats and blesses, and in the case that there was oil in front of him and he had his opinion about it if he needs to use it, he does not repeat and bless, and in the case that there was oil in front of him but he did not have an explicit opinion about it, the simplicity of the explanation that he repeats and blesses and this is certainly the opinion of some of the judges, but it must be discussed This is in the opinion of the Mishnab.
In fact he will bless since the opinion not to bless is not clear which is also taken in this way and most sides should be blessed and also that Masbara seems to bless.

Sources: If he didn't have oil and it was necessary to bring oil from another place, he simply needs to bless again as explained in the words of the Mishnav Tarna Nu for the matter of 4 types, and to make a sound in C. Tkafa D for the matter of a shofar, but if he had oil on the shelchan, Yaoi' in the Mishnav C. The validity of the Skikh concerning the blowing of a shofar that was sealed was his opinion on everyone, and he learned this from Si' Ro from 28th NKJV, Rabbi Deshem of Buar Shia (and he is the Rab'd as a mash in Bahl Shem) that even in the sealed if he blessed Regarding the fruits, his opinion is on everything that is in front of him on the table, and he doubted blessings to make it easy, and here the main part of his words are an innovation, since the shofar has a place to claim that there is no fee for the blessing of the fruits, here he does not have an opinion on the other shofars if he chooses one shofar to blow, but even there there is still an opinion that It is not clear to him that he will be successful with a particular shofar, he may need a particular shofar, but here another who has already filled with oil why would he think that he would need it again, and one should mention in this the words of the 16th and the 16th in the Kiddush Ra'a Sakah that if his cup is found to be vinegar if he intended to drink from the wine On the table, this is generally the Kiddush, and he dispensed with saying the Kiddush blessing again, but in a way that he did not intend to drink, no, and they did not mention at all that he believed that it would be considered his opinion on all the wine, since if the wine in the glass had been spilled or if vinegar had been found, he would have used the wine on the table. That this does not occur to him, and despite the fact that there are several ways to understand the opinion of the above-mentioned Rabbi of C. Roe and A. B. B. and in the BHL there (and there is a place to say that the Rab'd overrules Dain's halacha as a Jerusalemite but as the Hagm' that he brought in B. 10 ibid.), the MM of the Mishnav took there that the fence is that he had his opinion on everything in front of him, and so on, where it is known that he did not have his opinion on it in the 11th century, and who is the source of what he mentioned there in the 22nd of the Rabbi's opinion It is clear that the island will not drink from the throne of God, even though there they did not mean that they would consume more than a cup of the blessing from the rest of the wine, and on the contrary, we would mean to drink from a cup of the hazman and 11a, and from M.M. in the Holy Kiddush it seems that the Mishnav will not oblige the Mishnab to drink wine at the meal when it is not customary to drink more wine at the meal. And even if there was room to say doubt, blessings to ease, MM instead of the doubt being provided above as a sufficient doubt for the material, and here the Rabbi's opinion is not agreed upon, and to say the Rabbi's opinion here is not clear, but it must be discussed whether the simplicity of the Mishnab's opinion regarding Shofar He will also have his opinion on the matter of the Hanukkah candle that his opinion is on what is in front of him, but it is possible that the Mishnav fires shofarats that are not so good that he places a few in front of him if he needs to, and only because of this reason is it understandable why several shofarats are placed before him, so it is not understandable.

And even though the Mishnab took a warning 8, as they believe that if he lights a candle for less than a portion and comes to light a new candle he does not come back and bless, MM there it is because of doubt whether it came out in its first lighting as the חמש פמגע in the שבז דע ליא ב ב טירוצי החמ' אי Q, and there he does not return and bless Efi' if he stopped, and he does not belong here.
However, Yaoi' in the 28th of the 18th century called the Sabv in the name of the 18th parshath and said that if he pours after lighting one candle he does not return and bless the rest of the candles, it means that if he pours after the first candle he returns and blesses and still YLA was before him according to the Mishnab in S. R. and.

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

Since there is a bit of a sick place in this, therefore if AA wants to prevent him from relying on the Maquilin in this, but he will do it on natural orange juice and not on beer. And it is better that he make a difference about the wine and taste something and give it to others to drink than make a difference today about anything...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Since there is a bit of a sick place in this, therefore if AA wants to prevent him from relying on the McLean in this, but he will do it on natural orange juice and not on beer.
And how much better is it for him to differ about the wine and taste something and give it to others to drink than to differ today about something that is not wine.

Sources: Here, where there is no definition of state clay, it is not permissible to sanctify something that is not state clay, as demonstrated in Ovada Damimer in Pesachim 16, as well as in PK Danzir page 4 and Bandarim Mat 12 Efi' instead of headache, and here is the opinion of the Chazu that today there is no state clay And it is appropriate to feel in his opinion that the meaning of the judges who defined Khmer Medina is that it is the main drink of the citizens of the city according to MB Raab 24, and from the above regarding the matter of orange juice, the Hazo'a took that it is possible that it is important as Khmer Medina and did not actually rely on this, and the opinion of the Grisha in Shavuot Yitzchak Pesach PIA letter D, which are Khmer Medina, and therefore since in this the Haza'a seems to admit from the main point of the law to explain how many of the rulers of our time there are Khmer Medina today (we were in general the AGM, the Gershaza, the Grisha, the Shabal, the Gerhap, and the Ol who agreed in principle that today Khmer belongs to a state with us as the Chazoa and his helper), therefore instead of sick AA to prevent those who want to trust it.

But beer despite the fact that at the time of the GAM there were places where it was considered a state beer, but in our time the appellants argued about this because beer is not so important and the people as a whole are not used to drinking it (see the discussion in the comments and additions in Havdalah).

And it is better for him to give the latter to drink, in which he certainly goes beyond his duty, and this is the solution given in the Halacha to the matter between the Egyptians (Tara'a) and to the matter of one who has vowed not to drink (Tare'a 9), and in this he goes out of his duty, and as Kmash Shu'a'ar dlko'a in havdalah is useful If someone else drinks, also to share for the sake of sanctification.
And from the main point of the law, even a small one is useful for it, if the small one comes out of the difference, and if there is no big one, I. B. C. will graze there (and see there in the comments and additions).

And also the Chazoa, since he was a diabetic, he used to drink a little of the Havdalah all year long and give the rest to another person who comes out of the Havdalah to drink, (see in the book Kara Ali Moed and Barachot Rabbinu).
And also the driver of the Manchai (the voice of the Torah from 55777) who did so, who tasted a little, etc., where the corrector who did so is to be afraid, according to the Maga Raev Skat, it was brought there in the 2012 Skala3 that it is forbidden to consecrate the wine in order for it to be drunk Others if he doesn't drink and they know how to sanctify, and I. Rama I, Ibid. 9.

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

As I brought above regarding the matter of kiddush levanah, there is evidence from many places that when a person did not get to fulfill the mitzvah, it is a bad sign, but here we have to discuss it from another side, after all, an erring shatz is a bad sign for those who sent it, and yet there is a place to discuss the matter of this priest lest...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

As I stated above Regarding the sanctification of an egg Evidence from many places that when a person did not get to keep the mitzvah, it is a bad sign, but here we have to discuss from another side, after all, an erring shatz is a bad sign for his messengers, and yet there is a place to discuss the matter of a priest, whether a shatz is the messenger of the Israelites for blessing and a bad sign It is for the Israelis, indeed it is necessary to divide it a little, Degbi Shatz is not a mitzvah for the Shatzat at all but for the public, Shashka Gabi Cohen is a mitzvah for the priest, and Ika Afi' Damri in Gm' Duani Avrachm Kai on the blessing of the priests themselves, if so For our purposes, there is reason to say that a bad sign is either on the priest or on Israel, and on the other hand, there is reason to say that a bad sign is on one of them and they don't know who it is, and it seems that most of the things are true. The mitzvah, and I'm to the Midd [the blessings of] Dafi' are not torments of love if there is a cancellation of a prayer in them, and yet there is certainly a bad sign here, but the bad sign comes because of the individual and it comes because of the general, and like lamps that are lit because of the individual In the SPG Dasukah 29, and on the other hand, the whole rule that the bow was seen in his days, there is a herd of ma'ala in the inscriptions, and I. in Lent in Drukrat hoi delikta, etc., and I. Maktos 11 ea. The public who are not members of Ma'ala, and this includes both the public and the priests who have the Ma'ala herd to protect the generation and is fenced off in Peretz In.

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

Apparently not. Sources: Since it is a state, it is the same as it is for delay, as explained for other matters, see BHL Och Techu, 1. And who is the 20th Chazua and the Kachi and the Gerhak and more that can be blessed over a Havdalah candle when there is electricity (see comments and supplements C. Rachatz Ski 3), and there is a Gach...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Apparently not.

Sources: Since it is a state, it is the same as it is for delay, as explained for other matters, see BHL Och Techu, 1.
And who is the 20th Chazua and the Kahi and the Garhak and more that it is possible to bless a Havdalah candle when there is electricity (see comments and supplements C. Rahetz Ski 3), and there is a Gach din Yaotho, and from Mm to bless on Sunday the candle did not go up In the mind, and it is possible that a candle with electricity is considered to be added to the light for the purpose of adding light, as the rulings on the matter of Yot (see ibid. SKA), or they also included opinions that allow in the Havdalah to bless electricity, see ibid. What did they rely on when there is an emergency?
And perhaps 11 because of Davner, not in the same way in the same way as in the same way, but rather it is a bit urgent to say a serious question about the same thing in retrospect, and in the same way, in the same way.

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

It is enough for one to consecrate one of the rooms and intend to bring out the guests in all the rooms with the consecration, and they will hear him and go out of duty, and it is even useful to begin with. Sources: Okh Reg, 6.

It is enough for one to consecrate one of the rooms and intend to bring out the guests in all the rooms with the consecration, and they will hear him and go out of duty, and it is even useful to begin with.

Sources: Okh Reg, 6.

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

If it is sour to the extent that people avoid drinking it, the obligation of sanctification is not fulfilled, even if it smells good, and one must sanctify again, and if one did not intend to drink wine apart from this cup, one must also bless the creator of the fruit of the vine again. And if there was wine in front of him at the sanctification time...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it is sour to the extent that people avoid drinking it, the obligation of sanctification is not fulfilled, even if it smells good, and one must sanctify again, and if one did not intend to drink wine apart from this cup one must also bless the creator of the fruit of the vine again
And if there was wine in front of him at the time of kiddush on the table or bench, and he also intended to drink from it, some say that he discharged the obligation of kiddush for the same wine that was in front of him, and this can be relied upon when he has no one to take it out in kiddush again.

Sources: Och Arab, 1 and Noach, as well as in the above above Ra'a, 15 in the name of the Radbaz.

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