Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

The context is as follows: ג' אין רואין פני גיהנם אלו הן דקדוקי עניות וחולי מעיין והרשות ויש אומרים אף מי שיש לו אשה רעה ואידך אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה ואידך זימנין דכתובתה מרובה אי נמי אית ליה בנים מינה ולא מצי מגרש לה למאי נפקא מינה לקבולי מאהבה Three kinds of person do not see the face of Gehenna, viz., [one who suffers from] oppressive poverty, one ...


6

The gemara does not say that every stringency leads to a leniency, but sometimes it does, and thus the gemara may challenge that a certain stringency is a חומרא דאתי לידי קולא - a stringency which leads to a leniency, for example in Pesachim 48b, Yevamos 30b, Bava Kama 11a and Niddah 24b.


5

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that there are three opinions as to what "Pen Tishkach" prohibits: Rambam doesn't count it as a Mitzva at all. Moreover, according to the Rambam, one doesn't have to learn Svara, just the final Halacha, so forgetting Bavli would be fine. Ramban says it refers to the giving of the Torah, and the Drash in Avos is an Asmachta ...


5

If you read the second verse again you will see that it is saying the opposite of your understanding that you write in your question. It says that you should answer a fool (in matters of Torah), lest he be wise in his own eyes - if you do not answer him he will think that his opinion is wise. But in mundane matters we don't care what he thinks and feels, and ...


4

To restate the crucial part of your question: Is there any truth to this exchange ever happening? In other words, you are searching for a historical basis for this event in the past? You can look up the exchange in context, in Avodah Zara 2a-b. The quote begins: R. Hanina b. Papa — some say R. Simlai — expounded [the foregoing verse] thus: In ...


4

Rashi's shittah is to explicate the gemara - not to provide a stand-alone peirush on the Mishna. As such, you will find that his interpretation of any given mishna will vary depending on the context in which the gemara is quoting it. To give you an example, consider Shevi'it 4:10. There, the mishna asks and answers a question as follows: מאימתי אין ...


4

Rashi (ibid) clearly distinguishes between the whitening of sin and the commandment of the goat. This strongly implies that while the two may be correlated, they are ultimately independent and one does not necessarily cause the other. In other words, The whitening of sin was not necessarily always the direct result of the goat's death. Likewise, the ...


4

In the same sugya in the gemara Beitzah 16a, Rashi explains: "He should inform his mother" - he should make for him (the child) a sign so that if he eats it (the food) before he comes to his mother, she will see the sign and ask him "Who did this to you?", and he will answer "It was so-and-so, and he also gave me some bread", and through this his father ...


3

Look further the gemara: בראשונה היו קושרין לשון של זהורית על פתח אולם מבפנים וכיון שהגיע שעיר למדבר היה מלבין וידעו שנעשית מצותו Originally they used to tie the thread of crimson wool to the entrance of the Ulam within, and as soon as the he-goat reached the wilderness, it turned white. Then they knew that the commandment concerning it had ...


3

Excellent question! Of course Hashem is everywhere. In some times and places, we perceive His presence more strongly. In those instances, we say that the Shechinah is present. An analogy for this concept is radio waves. They're (pretty much) everywhere, but we can only "tune into" them when we have a receiver (i.e. a radio). Sorry - I don't remember the ...


2

The Baal HaTanya, in his introduction to his Shaar HaYichud V'Emunah, talk about this idea with regards to the verse in Mishlei 24:16, "For a righteous man can fall seven times and rise". There he explains that when a Tzaddik advances from one level to another, "Between one level and the next, before he can reach the higher one, he is in a state of ...


2

I have heard that it was first published in the Amsterdam edition of the Talmud in (5474 - 5477) 1714 - 1717. It is attributed to Rabbi Yosef Shmuel of Cracow the father of Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Leib who published this edition of the Amsterdam Talmud. In 1714, R. Judah Aryeh Leib ben Joseph Samuel, av be it din of Frankfurt-am-Main, arranged to have the ...


2

I was at a Shiva where Rabbi Avigdor Miller Zatzal attended. The one sitting Shiva asked Rabbi Miller regarding the Nifteres - who was his wife. She was on the way to go do a Mitzva and was hit by a bus. How could this have happened? Do we not say that a Shliacha Mitzva does not get harmed. Rabbi Miller responded that in a place where it is ("Shechiach ...


2

Look at the Haga'ot HaGRI"V 26 on the "Klalim B'Rashi", printed after the Mavo LaTalmud, at the end of Masechet Berachot. He says: ‫דרך רש״י בהרבה מקומות לפרש המשנה כס״ד דמקשן כדי להבין המשנה כס״ד טרם בואו אל המסקנא וזהו אך דרך‬ ‫רש״י לא כן שאר מפרשים תוי״ט פ״ב דפאה מ״ב‬ ‫ It is Rashi's way in many places to explain the Mishna according to the ...


2

I heard along time ago that the explanation is that we only need to keep one Shabbos correctly like the gemara Yerushalmi says, but 'correctly' means that it must follow six days of work, as the posuk (Shemos 20,9-10) says: ששת ימים תעבוד ועשית כל-מלאכתך, ויום השביעי שבת. And this itself can only be done if we keep the preceding Shabbos so that there will be ...


2

The closest thing I could find is this, on 16a: ואמר רב תחלת הוראה דהאי צורבא מרבנן לקלקולא אי אמרת בשלמא לקולא קאמר היינו קלקולא אלא אי אמרת לחומרא מאי קלקולא איכא כיון דמקלקלי בה רבים היינו קלקולא (in the context of a chumra) Rav Tachlis says: This young rabbi's ruling is problematic. The gemara asks "if it were unnecessarily lenient I would ...


1

M'Zahav U'Mipaz page 415 brings in the name of Rabbi Yosef Ades Zatzal that the location is what is currently known as Shaar Mandelbaum in the direction of the grave of Shimon HaTzadik


1

The Rif has written his Halochos from Yerushalmi as well as Bavli and there is a Rashi commentary on that (in the Rif) e.g. see Berachos 8b (Rif pages) on the last of the narrow lines where he quotes the Yerushalmi and Rashi has a commentary on it - so for sure it's not exactly copied-and-pasted from the Gemara, in fact there are times that the Poskim quote ...


1

From the ברייתא cited further in the Gemara, it would appear that any and all damages, even of the slightest and likeliest nature and occurring anywhere on one's property are included in this discussion (at least according to the opinion voiced there, although there is no contradictory sentiment earlier in the discussion that I've detected) [text of Rashi ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible