There was a ???? in ??????? where a ?? who had had ???? but no ????? went to R’ Shmuel Salant, to find out whether he should keep ??? or not (because a ??? who keeps ??? is ???? ????). R’ Shmuel wasn’t there at the time, and another ?? forced him to write on ???.
The ???? ???? ??’ ?”? brings the ???? that the ???? of ??? was given at ???, and asks that at the time, the entire ??? ????? had had ???? (before eating ???? ???), but the ????? didn’t take place until ?? ????. The ???? ????? ?? says that a ?? who has had ???? but not ????? is not a Jew. So what is ??? in the ???? that ??? ???? ???? ?????
(I think the ??? ???? is ????? a ???? somewhere that the whole ????? for a ??? to keep ??? is because of ‘???’, and before it was given to ??? ????? there was no such ????, and therefore the ???? kept the ????. You can say the same thing here – if it was given to them, then there is no ???. But i don’t remember where it is)
The ???? ???? says that once they had ????, they were considered ??? ???? and could keep ???, and he learns from here that that every ?? ??? ??? ??? is ?????? to keep ???. (See the ???? ??? ??”? ??’ ??”? ??”?, who goes along similar lines)