Commentary for Keritot 32:18

אמר ליה אביי לעולם אימא לך

'If he did many [secondary] acts of work of the same [principal] class, he is liable only to one offering'; but according to R'Eliezer he should be liable for each of the secondary acts of work as if they were principal acts of work! Hence it is clear [that th Mishnah, then, represents] R'Akiba's view, and it is hereby proved that he had no doubt at all that in the case of an act being done in ignorance of the Sabbath and with knowledge of its prohibition the intervening week-days effected separateness, and that his question was only when the act was performed with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of its prohibition, the point being whether different Sabbaths are like different objects or not.

Explore commentary for Keritot 32:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.