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).
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 6394 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/6394
