Commentary for Keritot 35:38

הא קמ"ל דר"מ בשיטת ר' אליעזר קאי

but rather because if you said that he was exempt, you would thereby establish a sin-offering for the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exemption of the second may be taken to imply that the first definitely ate the heleb, who should therefore be liable to a sin-offering.');">¹⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Keritot 35:38. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.