Commentary for Chullin 171:40

בשלמא רבנן לחומרא

The same would be the result if [this were so] only in a minority of cases, for since R'Meir takes into account the minority, by adding the minority to the presumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 9a: a living animal is presumed to be forbidden until it is definitely ascertained that it has been validly slaughtered. Here, therefore, even if it were held that the majority of children do not bungle what they undertake to do, there is however a minority of some who do, and this, coupled with the presumed prohibition of the animal, would carry more weight than the majority, and their slaughtering would be invalid. The question therefore is: why was it necessary to hold that the majority of children bungle what they do?');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Chullin 171:40. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.