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.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 4091 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/4091
