The literal meaning of דבטש בכספתא is: kicked the money-box - as Rashi says in Shavuos Daf 30b:
And similarly in Eiruvim 54a:
בטשה ביה. בעטה בו
And in Shabbos 116b:
אתא חמרא ובטשא. דחפתו לארץ
So the שורש of דבטש is בטש - and I suspect it's Aramaic - and the ד means that, to give us that kicked.
כספתא is a money box, as Rashi says in ...
The Maharsha discusses the pig story in Chidushei Agadot at the end of Sotah, as advertised, but the comment is applied not to the portion of the Gemara on 49b where the story is told, but to the portion of the Mishna on 49a that that portion of Gemara comments on.
Here is the text of the relevant comment in the Maharsha:
בפולמוס של טיטוס כו' פרש"י שהביא ...
On a less miraculous note, the ibn Ezra (Shemos 20:1)rejects a literal reading of the chazal that shamor and zachor were said simultaneously. In a lengthy piece, he promotes the idea that words embody meaning and when there is a quote of someone where words are added to the quote, or changed, this is not a contradiction. The quote is merely elaborating on ...
What you are referring to is תקנת השבים - Takanat-Hashavim - a special dispensation for those who repent.
By the strict letter of the law, you have to return what you stole. If it no longer exits, then you have to pay for it.
However, since it would be a more inconvenience to return certain items, Chazal declared that the thief may keep those items and pay ...
I don't have Kahati but from the Bartenura I will say that we are dealing with a legality in the second case that doesn't apply to the first. In the second case the plaintiff points to the big ox and says this one damaged mine. To which the defendant responds by pointing to a different, smaller ox and says no, this one did. Now, although value wise the ...
This question was raised by R. Menachem Azaria of Fano in Asarah Ma'amarot, Ma'amar Chikur Hadin 5:6
וכמה הוא מן המתמיהין התנא הזה לתלות בעצמו קללת אחרים
How astounding it is that this tanna hung the curse of others on himself!
I'm not sure I quite understand his answer, but it sounds like he is saying that this tanna is (metaphorically?) God, in ...
Tosafot Shabbat 55a suggest that the rule forbidding working one’s animals on shabbat would apply to fish as well.
They think that this could be derived from a gezeira shavah linking shabbat to the prohibition of cross-breeding (which the gemara in Bava Kamma 55a definitively rules applies to fish).
Then, say Tosafot, we can learn from shabbat to other ...
The Mishnah (Babba Kama 90a) gives examples of shaming people and the various fines owed for each offense.
The Mishnah on 92a, then goes on to say: "..even though he paid the fine, he is not forgiven until he seeks forgiveness from him..."
The Gemara immediately comments: "Tannu Rabbanan: All these fines are merely payment for the embarrassment caused. ...
The Steinsaltz translates "מפני ששנה בחטא" differently:
מפני ששנה בחטא, שלא רק שחטא בכך שגנב, אלא הוסיף חטא אחר על כך למוכרו.
Not only did he sin in that he stole, rather he added an additional sin afterwards by selling it
Namely, NOT that he repeated his sin, but rather the person committed an additional sin.
Tosafos (Bava M'tzi'a' 99b, s.v. פרט למזיק) indicate that the exegetical basis for the teaching found in the mishna (Bava Kama 9b, נכסים שאין בהן מעילה) and the Y'rushalmi (Gitin 5:1, דתני רבי חייה נזקין להדיוט ואין נזקין לגבוה) that אדם is not liable for damages to הקדש is found in Chagiga (10b, מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה), where a גזרה שווה is made between ...
Tehilim 62:12 says:
God spoke one thing, I heard two, for God has strength.
...our Sages interpreted it as referring to [the maxim that] “Remember” and “Keep” were stated in a single utterance.
See also Rashi Shemot 20:8. In fact, Rashi (Shemot 20:1) says that all the 10 Commandments were originally said simultaneously, and later ...
First you can learn most verses concerning BK in parashat Mishpatim, with Rashi. In a second step mishnayot with Bartenura. A second time parasha with Rashi and Mishnayot with Bartenura and Ykar Tosfot Yom Tov. In BK, specially for the 7nt chapter the Gemara contain a lot of drashot. If you know the verses it will be easier.
Regarding the first issue, I think a key point that has to be noted is the precise wording used by Tosafos, particularly at the end. When discussing ailments that are directly God-inflicted, Tosafos does not say you might think that healing them is contravening the decree of the king. Rather, Tosafos says that you might think that healing them appears like ...
I think that Rava accepted. Rava himself says RY nimuko ymo in Eruvin 14b
אמר רבא האלהים אמרה וגמירנא לה מיניה ומאי טעמא קא הדר ביה משום דר' יוסי נימוקו
So, he accredited this argument in BK
This argument was already used by Rabbi. Gittin 67a
גופא אמר שמואל אמר רבי הלכה כרבי יוסי דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח אמר לפניו ר"ש ברבי מאחר שר"מ וחנינא איש אונו ...
The Steinsaltz's commentary on that gemara is as follows:
(bolded words are the gemara, unbolded is the Steinsaltz's explanation)
אנא [אני] כר' יוסי סבירא לי [סבור אני] ואני פוסק לגמרי כפי שיטתו, שר' יוסי נימוקו (טעמו וסברתו) עמו ולכן ראוי לפסוק כשיטתו בכל מקום.
I [R' Nachman] hold like R' Yosi and I always follow his halachic decisions, since "...
Logically no. Naamah was from Amon so that she would have been born anyway. However, Rus would not have been born as she was descended from the royal house of Moav which would have been wiped out. If some other female descendant had taken her place, she would not have been considered as being from Moav as conversion erases the nonJewish relationship and she ...
The footnote, as @DoubleAA states, is related to the halachah outlined in the mishna on the preceding Daf. There it is established that keeping that goat would be a sin mi d'rabban, the discussion about the chassid is a continuation of that piece of mishna.
I came across a very intesting answer to your question from Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim, who ...
The rabbis enacted that it is forbidden to raise small livestock in Israel. This man is upset that by virtue of his goat, he is violating this prohibition. Because it is pekuach nefesh, he is surely exempt, but is upset nonetheless.
(Note: The following is from my own Sevaras based on my current understanding I do not claim that this answer is valid. Take the following with a grain of salt.)
Emotional pain different from Boshes is something which the individual feels separate of the other five payments, in that it can not be measured objectively from a Judge but rather is stated judged ...
This exact question was posed by Rav Nachum Eliezer Rabinowitz (of the Yeshiva in Ma`aleh Adumim) in his article "Mav`eh" (Hebrew).
It doesn't seem like there's a real practical difference, but he has some interesting suggestions.
From Y'shivat Ma`alot, there's an article which also brings proof from the Zohar.