Can get out of the question by having B ask additional doctors and they will do as they please.
Sources: The law, since the teacher does not repeat the teacher again, the judges differed in several places if they say this law, such as in the testimony of invalid witnesses and faithfulness that is outside of the Bible, and in the testimony of those who are forbidden and in the testimony that is faithful from the law in his hand, and 11 that everywhere they say, and Afi' in the Gentiles of Messiah according to his end they were divided The latter if they say it because he said, etc.
And I. in detail in the Talmudic encyclopedia Kach roughly since he said that they brought all the words of the scribes in this.
However, there is an argument here that since the person is not responsible for his words, he must be lying in one of them, so it is difficult to believe and trust him, and even though it is not the main point of an opinion since he said, after all, this argument is usually a reason to believe his first words. to say that I will not rely on him.
MM because Davidini is a business person and the doctor is clearly not responsible, and even though there is a place to sit down and discuss the issues and discuss if KIL, since he said on various matters, such as in the Shoah's commentary on the testimony of his daughter's sanctification, and it is also necessary to discuss Davgm in Yoma, for the decision of a doctor. And regarding the matter of umdana, it is explained in the arbitrators that there is no such thing, since the Ghid does not repeat and divulge again (cf. Zin Hakadshim Kg 3 and Shu'at Beit Ephraim AHA Kg 3), and here in the Nidd it is possible that it is not Umdna but a law from the Salat or a law of a craftsman who does not harm her art, and also It must be discussed from the side that excuses his speech by saying that at first he did not check KC A. BM 20 EB and Tor and B. HOM C. 20, and it must also be discussed from Damari's side that he didn't clear it, we thought until he was wrong because he did not check for a benign, ai 'Sanhedrin 12 12, and one must also assert a valid argument for what I did not say in this, since he said, etc. ' Megillah 27 PB] and in truth do not say' who repeats and says [i.e. Hom 29] ACP if his speech is excused.
MM in the Nidd, which is a pkoun and can be easily ascertained, therefore it is appropriate to be wary of different opinions and methods and because we imagine we will do something [Gitin 19], and for this one should ask other doctors, and in the pkoun Izali' another two doctors against one doctor as explained In Och C. Tarih SG Efi' to say that one should not eat, (even though there is a division between estimation and testimony, and here it must be argued that it is not estimation, mm even if one witness seems to be faithful, but also for one is invalid two faithful witnesses are invalid against him as explained How much did I go astray and misbehave, and yet in such a way that B would ask doctors from Mn that they can be trusted).
And I also asked GRA Farid in the same way that in the meantime they asked three other doctors and they said that there is no pulse if you can rely on the ZA and ruled that it is possible to do so.
And if AA asks other doctors and it is a time of great pressure, if apparently true words are evident, his last words should be trusted in a way that excuses his words first and foremost with the truth, not as above why he was wrong.
The answer code is: 2460