Quoting%20commentary for Keritot 40:6
רב אשי אמר
Raba explained: They differ in the matter of the sequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His intention was e.g. to kindle first the one and then extinguish the other, but in fact both acts were done simultaneously. The first Tanna insists that the work must be performed in the intended sequence and therefore declares him liable only for the kindling which after all was done at the initial stage; whereas R. Eliezer pays no heed to the intended sequence, and consequently declares him liable for both acts. See commentaries.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Explore quoting%20commentary for Keritot 40:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.