Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 113:2

אמר רבא מאי חייב נמי דקאמר כמעשה צלי של שבת

is this to be understood? If I say that the meat would not have been roasted if he had not turned it over, then obviously [he is not liable if he did not turn it over]; and if it would have been roasted even though he had not turned it over, why then is he not liable [where he did not turn it over]? - It is necessary to be stated only for the circumstance where, had he not turned it over, it would have been roasted on one side only to the extent of that which was eaten by Ben Drusai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The name of a bandit who used to eat his food slightly done; gen. a third done.');">²</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 113:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.