does not repeat and read.
Sources: Ya'oi' in the 12th century in the Megillah in the name of the PMG that if he was satisfied with the matter of reading the scroll, whether he read it or not, he repeats and reads that doubting the words of Kabbalah is like doubting Dauriita, and it should be noted above that regarding the cities that are provided in the reading of the scroll, opinions were given in the first pages of the scroll Doubt does not return to the explanation of the words of Kabbalah such as Darbanan regarding the matter of doubting Darbanan (and even in Rashi Bitza there is doubt about whether the words of Kabbalah are like Darbanan or not), but from everyone's statements we learn that if there was a doubt Darbanan without the words of Kabbalah he would not have returned and read.
And the truth is that the main points of the matter are already explained in Sogi' Davrakot page 11 and a bit in Yerushalmi where there is doubt about the words of Kabbalah whether he said or not he does not repeat and it is explained in Gm. "Q, and also to the MD parasha 2nd Darbanan does not go back and reads in doubt read parasha 2 as explained there (except that the other rules stated there regarding repetition of a prayer should be discussed a little).
So for our purposes, in doubt, he read two books and one translation, he does not repeat and read.
And I saw that he wrote in the second thread of the 19th century, that if he is in doubt that he does not know where he is holding, he should be stricter and start from a place that is provided for the material, that is, that he should continue from the end of the place that he knows for sure that he read.
And it should be noted that this does not contradict the above instruction, Dafi' in the Kash and prayer also to the Mad that a doubt does not go back, but if he read and made a mistake, he will go back to the place where he was wrong, and if he does not know, he will go back to the beginning of the parsha or the blessing, and this is explained in the Mishnah and Liit Man Daflig came up in the Amorai.
The halach hazi' dakhion dramia was imposed on her because he is holding in the middle and he just doesn't remember where he is holding, this is more serious.
And the reason for this may be because at the very least one needs to complete the Kash or the prayer or the sedra and only the one who is condemned from where he holds is considered as something that can be fixed easily, in this KEL there is also a persistent doubt that it needs to be made worse.
Or perhaps it should be said that Daqber Isura cheated on her in Darbanan and only what is condemned is how much of the prohibition is similar in this to the strengthening of Isura in that it is more serious than just a doubt Darbanan A. in the rules of the SS of the Shachak or 20 and 21, and even though there are disagreements about the Shachach Ibid. in the PMG in the lips of Da'at there, MM here is more severe than just the prohibition of the Shachak where there is a side that the prohibition does not exist at all, the Shachak 21 that the prohibition certainly exists, and I.A. in this.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5603 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5603
