Allegedly, it should have been said with the public if we were with them and engaged in the sanctity of Desdra, but they did not usually answer, but to Dan who is not a law of saying in public, it seems that he is not on the side of something in the sanctity but on the side of a way of earth that should not withdraw from the public.
Regarding saying the verse, it is better and appropriate to say the whole verse.
Sources: The Shachat C. Kalev Skag brought from the Maga Dam came before the prayer and found a public in the Bekhanas saying that the holiness of the Desdra will be answered with them, etc. that apparently they did not do so, and apparently according to the simplicity of the Mishnab Se 9 and Haiya 8 1 21 The judgment should be for Paz to answer with the public this time, but for those who believe that a single Keddosha Desdra is saying it [Rama Ochh Kalev 1], which is the main part of the ruling for Didan, so it is necessary to discuss DKdosha Desdra is not A law that belongs to the public at all, and since they said or will be said about the order of their prayer, it does not belong to the public who are now saying the holy one, a model if one has to answer then with the public but it is a law from the way of the land [i.e. from the above-mentioned NIS 2 C. Sa] that he will not be seen as an infidel, And not from the side of the obligation of sanctimonious poverty with the public, and in the AGM [Och 13 Pet] the division between the obligation of sanctified poverty and what should be said with the public, and perhaps there will be a problem in hearing from the outside that the hazuza ordered in sanctity to answer with them, and perhaps In this he will not have to answer with them (the Garnak ordered Efi Baman to answer with them and the Garnak disagrees).
And it should be noted that the Demashnav in C. Kalev there on the above-mentioned Shachatz [SKG] just in his language that the obligation to answer with the public is if he hasn't said it yet, and it means in the raids that if he has already said it, his opinion about it doesn't get worse, and also Efi' if he hasn't said it but His opinion is to say so, since his opinion is to say 20 17 at 18 the words of Maga 1 and 17 20 that the world did not practice, and it is easy to understand his opinion in that there is no obligation in this.
However, Yaoi Shlomat Chaim Och Ken, who brought the questioner the words of the Mishnav here and made it difficult for them from the 11th and 16th, wrote there in response, for the OT, whoever hears a sacred thing if he does not answer with them is seen as being disrespectful, therefore it is correct to say with the When he says it out loud, he won't be confused, he can say it later in the usual order if he wants to.
And if he is not careful, then he will say what was omitted in Akal, and apparently according to the words of the Shachat about these words of the Mishnav, aa to interpret here (and they were not brought up in the words of the questioner there), and in particular what says that the completion of life, if he wants to say it After that, while in the hour of the day it means to make peace, his intention is to say later (such as someone who has not yet prayed and is ready to pray in a second number) it was not customary for him to say now if the public, the people of the island did not make it worse for him, and urges, and perhaps the words of the completion of life hua To settle the line of the questioner there, the purpose of the Mishnav to answer with the public is so that he has time to speak with the public, and according to the DSL to the Mishnav above, he can later say something a little different from what the public said as the Mishnav of the Farah, mm. this.
And again, I saw in Arosh C. Kalav 8 that he wrote according to the above-mentioned Maga and Zal, and from Mas that the single person, when he comes to the Bahkan, while the congregation is saying Kadusha Desidra, he should say with them, because our customs are not like that, since we believe in the halacha that a single person says As in the case of holiness, Deutzer Akal, and the main points of the matter are as I wrote regarding the issue of whether one is obligated to say a statement from a sacred law (explained in the above-mentioned AJM) it depends on the issue if an individual says it, but on the part of the laws of the way of the land mentioned in the Mishnav for the purpose of our praise and in Hai'a Regarding the issue of Piyot [and A. Rama in several places regarding the issue of Piyot in the public that prays with them], neither the Mishnab in S. Kalev nor the Arusha there mentioned this, and perhaps the 27th, which is mainly from the law of the 19th century and not from the law of praise as follows, and "A.
Regarding the recitation of half a verse or the whole verse, in Rashi Sota Ma AA, it means that the main reward for this is for reciting the verse as a whole with a translation, on the part of the Talmud Torah, and from what the Sha'tz take out at the beginning of the verse, one must say Dasgi on the part that does not count To him as the saying of half a verse, as the Mish, some also rule on the matter of the sanctity of the Haza Shatz who hears from the Shatz the rest except Kadosh and Baruch, A. Sh. We have found in other places that the Sha'at says part of the verse and the congregation says the continuation of the verse, and A. Arosha C. Na, and who is A. in MGA C. Refav that he is a prayer minister and in MGA C. Na Skat, and it is possible that Dhamga Azil In the opinion of the Reverend Rabbi, Davracha 1A is to come out half and half as the simplicity of Reka, and in any case, Sal Daha for half a verse, but in the Rabbi's opinion, it deviates there, meaning that from the point of view of the regulation, the matter is that 11 should say the whole verse.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 2575 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/2575
