To summarize (and perhaps embellish) Prof. Yaakov Elman's The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, which addresses all this at length, Hazal seemed to assume that every word in the Torah was deliberate, meaningful, and not mere stylistic flourish. However, in response to Karaism, Rav Saadya Gaon greatly ...
You may be referring to a comment by the Rashash, who in turn explains a comment by Rashi on B'rachos 8a (s.v. כפיטורי בפי ושט). Rashi says:
ים אוקיינוס יש בו מקומות שאינו מקבל ברזל ומחברין לוחי הספינה ע"י חבלים ועקלים שתוחבי' בנקביו ותוקעין אותו בדוחק לפי שהם גסין כמדת הנקב
There are places in the ocean that do not tolerate iron, and ...
Look at the Haga'ot HaGRI"V 26 on the "Klalim B'Rashi", printed after the Mavo LaTalmud, at the end of Masechet Berachot.
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 ...
Two editions of Mishnayot I have on hand1 ascribe this commentary, the עיקר תוספות יום טוב, to R' Meshulam Katz.
This Geni page attributes Ikkar Tosafot Yom Tov to R' Meshulam Katz, and identifies him as the Av Beit Din of Lvov, who died there in 1810.
The text in the Geni page is apparently copied2 from a pedigree record included by R' Katz' great^3-...
The largest cluster of lessons is 67. This occurs in a section of commentary covering the large majority of the book of II Samuel.
Now for some more details:
We have commentaries from Gersonides on the Scriptural books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Proverbs, Ruth,...
דריש ר''ע איש ואשה זכו שכינה ביניהן לא זכו אש אוכלתן
R. Akiba expounded: When husband and wife are worthy, the Shechinah abides with them; when they are not worthy fire consumes them.
Rashi there explains:
שכינה ביניהם - שהרי חלק את שמו ושיכנו ביניהן יו"ד באיש וה"י באשה
The Shechinah abides with them - God split ...
Many laws applied to the Passover offering that do not apply to the Seder. For example, the Passover offering can only be eaten by people who are Tahor (a specific form of ritual purity). There is no requirement to be Tahor to attend a Seder nowadays.
Similarly, the Passover offering had to be eaten only by the invited members of a group. Nowadays, anyone ...
A friend of mine compiled the following list:
This edition: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/14118 has Efodi, Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, ibn Crescas, and Abarbanel.
This: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/31594 is the commentary of R. Moshe Narboni.
This is the commentary of R. Shem Tov ibn Falaquera: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/23920.
Two commentaries by R. Yosef ...
Some old non-allegorical commentaries on Shir HaShirim:
Rashbam's commentary (translation) separates the allegorical and non-allegorical comments.
R' Avraham ibn Ezra wrote his commentary in three levels: one lexical, one non-allegorical, and one allegorical.
There are two anonymous commentaries here given under the headings פירוש מחכמי צרפת that are non-...
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 ...
The Ohr hachaim on the beginning of bereshit quotes the Talmud Chagigah 12a. There it lists 10 things were created in the first day, and one of them is Choshech.
ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב עשרה דברים נבראו ביום ראשון ואלו הן שמים וארץ תהו ובהו אור וחשך רוח ומים מדת יום ומדת לילה שמים וארץ דכתיב בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ תהו ובהו דכתיב והארץ היתה תהו ובהו ...
Rav Sa'adya Gaon explains in his commentary to Psalms (51:7) that David was not making a statement about the state of Man. Rather, he was speaking personally; that he was so ashamed, that he felt as though he were conceived in sin. He writes (as translated into Hebrew by R. Qafih):
והרי אני מרוב כלימתי כאלו בעון חוללתי
For I, from my great ...
David's sin was a personal matter, Saul's was national.
King Saul was personally commanded to eradicate Amalek. This was a national interest which was under his authority as king. When he sinned and didn't obey, it was in his position as king, and so God punished him as a king (i.e. by losing his monarchy).
King David sinned in something everyone was ...
There is a current academic attempt (by Prof. Moshe Tzipor from the Bar Ilan University) to reconstruct the original Hebrew text the Greek translation was based on. It has extensive notes, comments and explanations. As far as I can tell, only the first volume (Bereshit/Genesis) has been published so far:
Rambam states explicitly in the first paragraph of his introduction to Sefer Hamitzvot that the Commentary to the Mishnah came first:
After having completed our previous well-known work wherein we included a commentary to the whole Mishnah – our goal in that work
having been satisfied with the explanation of the substance of each
and every Halacha in ...
It's called שערי צבי - "Shaarey Tzvi" written by Rav Tzvi Rotter shlit"a (he is the son of the Shaaray Aharon). The book can be found here and can be partially viewed here.
Hat tip to sam regarding another book with the same premise, ילקוט מלכו של עולם - "Yalkut Malko Shel Olam", information about it can be found here.
The author of בכור שור is Rabbi Alexander Sender Schor (1673-1737), author of Simlah Chadasha.
He wrote בכור שור on many masechtos of Shas, including Kiddushin. All of בכור שור may be found in this sefer; the commentary to Kiddushin starts on page 444.
I checked the first comment on דף ב, and it seems to match the commentary quoted in the ילקוט מפרשים (in ...
Rashi quotes the Targum Yonatan and says that "naked" doesn't mean literally naked
naked: (עָרוֹם). Jonathan renders: פְּחֵיחַ, with torn and worn out clothing, but not actually naked.
Other commentators mention that it was symbolic or that he was actually only naked for a brief time, in his own house.
Since your question is divided into two parts - rabbinical responses and how you personally can respond, I'll include in my answer two parts as well: my own personal advice and rabbinical responses and responses of other individuals that I've gathered over time.
First of all, a little about me: I've been interested in Tanach study, Jewish history and ...
Hidabroot (here) writes
It is a well-known fact that Rabbi Yaakov [Ben Asher, the Baal Haturim] wrote his entire commentary
on the Torah in one night, orally, although no reliable source has
which is what you might have heard, although they don't connect it to his wedding night.
Thanks to @msh210, I found an official source in the ...
R. David Conforte identifies (Korei Hadorot 28a) the author of Megillat Esther as R. Isaac de Leon, a student of R. Isaac Kampaton. R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, however, (Shem Hagedolim Vol. I entry 333 for the letter Yod) raised several arguments against this identification and concluded that the author of Megillat Esther was R. Isaac Leon (where Leon ...
The sefer was authored by Rav Yitzchak Isaac Safrin, the Komarno Rebbe.
Yitsḥak Ayzik of Komarno was the most interesting and original of the dynasty’s leaders in its second generation. In effect, he founded a new Hasidic dynasty, that of Komarno, and was known by the name Safrin, whereas other members of the family were called Eichenstein. After his ...
In Wikipedia it says here:
One of the first of the Acharonim to write a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud was Solomon Sirilio (1485–1554), also known as Rash Sirilio, whose commentaries cover only the Seder Zeraim and the tractate Shekalim of Seder Moed. Sirilio's commentary remained in manuscript form until 1875, when it was first printed in Mainz by Meir ...
This website provides a pretty decent Hebrew commentary on most of the Yerushalmi:
This is a website which is a great resource for Yerushalmi and has many different commentaries, manuscripts, and essays. I have not gone through all of it, but do recommend Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky's commentary, which is ...
I think the commentary Beit Lehem Yehuda by Rabbi Yehudah Fetayah fits that description. The author says in the introduction that he wants to provide something like what Rashi provides for people learning Talmud. The commentary aims to be an aid to understanding the words of the text as directly as possible.
As explained in the source referenced here he started with Navi due to the poverty of a good collection of Mefarshim, Rashi on Nach is a more advanced pirush that doesn't explain the words the way his Pirush on the Torah does and there was a general lack of expert knowledge on Nach to learn from (I would say that part hasn't improved).
So in other words, he ...