I do not understand the Chasam Sofer on the b'Shleima in the question: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/08jt6agzpih73a8/AAA-jD47CDk3t2tmFHumORMsa?dl=0
The 'mafraiya' issur kicks in as soon as soon as that day ends. So not only is there no need to for the eating of the second loaf after the day ends, but the issur actually already occurred passively by the time of the that eating (unless he eats exactly at nightfall). So why does the Chasam Sofer only establish the case with action of v'shoov kam lei ?
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach
The scenario of the Chasam Sofer is as follows:
1) Reuven said, "Loaf A will be a Konam on me if I do not eat Loaf B."
2) Reuven ate Loaf A.
3) Reuven is now obligated to eat Loaf B because if he does eat Loaf B, then it will transpire that, retroactively -- l'Mafrei'a -- he transgressed when he ate Loaf A.
4) The words of the Chasam Sofer, "v'Shuv Kam Lei," mean that Reuven now has an obligation to eat Loaf B. (It seems that the words "Kam Lei" are similar to what the Gemara states here about the person who became a Nazir and then, when he ate grapes, "Kam Lei b'Val Yochal" -- "he stands in the prohibition of not eating [grapes]." Similarly, the Chasam Sofer means, "he stands with the obligation to eat Loaf B.")
5) The day passed and Reuven did not eat Loaf B. He thereby has trangressed the Konam that he placed on Loaf A.
6) The Rashash and Poras Yosef (printed at the back of the Geamra) give a similar explanation to that of the Chasam Sofer.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom