21

The Commentary on the Mishnah came first. In his colophon at the end of it, Rambam writes that he began writing the commentary at age 23, and finished it at age 30, in the year 1479 of the "Era of Documents" (4928 since Creation, 1168 CE). The Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, was written in the 4930s. In the introduction he says that the current year is ...


18

A common commentary to the Yerushalmi that serves a similar function to Rashi is the Penei Moshe written by Rabbi Moshe Margolis. A volume from the Talmud Yerushalmi with his commentary can be seen here. Other commentaries that follow a similar pattern are Korban Ha'edah by Rabbi David Frankel and Chiddushei Ridvaz by Rabbi Yaakov David Willowsky. These are ...


18

Rabbi Eli Mansour said after Rashi to learn Ramban.


17

This article, by Prof. Rivka Ulmer, might answer some of your questions... She writes (pg. 108): "Prior to the attestation in the New Testament, there is no evidence of Psalm 22 being used in a Jewish messianic context... Jewish interpretations of the Psalm identify the individual in the Psalm with a royal figure, alternatively interpreted as King David, ...


14

The standard pagination and layout of the Gemara follows that of Daniel Bomberg's edition of 1520-22, which was the first time that Shas was printed as a complete set. (Earlier Jewish printers, including the famous Soncino family, had produced only individual volumes.) A notable difference is that Berachos has 66 pages as compared to today's 64; that change ...


14

Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto is a pashtan and grammarian. He is not a rationalist, though sometimes his conclusions are the same as the rationalist meforshim. But, if he thought that the best peshat in a pasuk was that magic was real, for example, he would endorse it as such. He dislikes and criticizes derash, when intended seriously as historical and ...


14

I have an old copy of The Jewish Observer that discusses the ban. It seems a couple comments in his translation of the Talmud implied that certain sages ruled consistently in a particular fashion (e.g. stringently) because their personality inclined in that direction. Some were worried that readers would infer that the sages were allowing their personal ...


14

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 My translation: There are places in the ocean that do not tolerate iron, and ...


13

I've got to put in a plug for the translation and commentary of R' Hirsch, of which I'm a big fan. I love his elegant, holistic, thoughtful take on the whole Torah, especially the ritual stuff in Leviticus (Temple offerings, ritual purity, etc.) that's otherwise most difficult to understand from a modern perspective. When I read R' Hirsch, everything fits ...


12

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 ...


12

R' Hirsch (Isaac's suggestion) and Ramban (Hacham Gabriel's suggestion) are both widely available in English, and for good reason. Both are very easy to appreciate, both on the simplest of levels, as well as on much deeper planes. If your Hebrew improves or you can get a learning partner who is also capable of being a mentor, I highly, highly recommend ...


12

To quote S. from On The Main Line: Rashi was known by Christians as Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (Yarchi) because of a mistake, the mistake being that it was thought that 1) he was from Lunel and 2) that the yud stood for ירחי, which was Hebrew for "from Lunel" (Lunel as in luna as in moon). This mistake was so entrenched that the Chida (page 6 in linked ...


11

No edition of the Torah I have seen has included the commentaries M'tzudas David or M'tzudas Tziyon, but that does not prove anything. However, the author of both, in his introduction says the following, implying that the commentary is written specifically on (and beginning with) the N'vi'im (text is from this paper on the commentaries and the translation is ...


11

Rashi's commentary seems to indicate that it refers to the plight of the Jewish Nation in Exile.


10

A good place to look to find refutations of Christian messianic interpretations of the bible is Sefer Nitzachon, printed in Otzar Vikuchim by Dr. J. D. Eisenstein. This is his answer to this specific case (p. 256): The Christian claim is that Jesus was crying to G-d, his father, "Why have you abandoned me?" at the time he was being executed. But according ...


10

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-...


9

Double AA covered the main commentaries on Yerushalmi. Here are a few very useful contemporary ones: Lev Yerushalayim (on all of Yerushalmi, I think) Commentary of Rav Chaim Kanievsky (example here) The Artscroll Yerushalmi (in progress)


9

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 ...


9

Sotah 17a: 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. (Soncino translation) Rashi there explains: שכינה ביניהם - שהרי חלק את שמו ושיכנו ביניהן יו"ד באיש וה"י באשה The Shechinah abides with them - God ...


9

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 ...


8

It was written on all of the Prophets and the Writings with the exception of Ruth, Lamentations and Esther. It was not written on Chumash. Source


8

The Traditional Path of learning Tanach in the Yeshivah is to get a copy of the Mikrot Gedolot, and the Jastrow Dictionary. Sadly, I don't think Mikrot Gedolot has been fully translated into English yet. Mikrot Gedolot, generally contains the following Commentaries, in addition to Rashi and Onkelos. (Of course, there are different versions, with slightly ...


8

You may also want to look into a commentary that's more at the "macro" level. That is, a text which considers a couple of big questions per parasha and then exams the many answers to those questions from the commentators. A famous one that I recommend is Nehama Leibowitz: New Studies in the Weekly Parasha (7 volume set) Amazon source for English translation....


8

According to the JNUL website, Printed editions of the commentaries on tractates Ta’anit, Nedarim, Nazir and Horayot have been mistakenly attributed to him, and were most probably written by the scholars of Mainz or others. Likewise the printed commentary on Moed Katan is wrongly attributed to him. Two tractates have partial Rashi commentaries: Bava Batra ...


8

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 ...


8

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-...


8

The source for this is the Chida in Shem HaGedolim letter Shin:7


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


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