Ralbag has an interesting explanation of the challenge of the Binding of Isaac, which could answer this question.
He explains that the challenge was specifically to see how easy it would be for Abraham to sacrifice his son (i.e. not to see if he would sacrifice his son at all). God's command to Abraham was sufficiently vague that Abraham could have sought ...
Tosafot Bechorot 4a:
דלא היה אהרן בכור דמרים גדולה ממנו ג' שנים כדאמר במדרש [ריש פ' שמות] כמו שהיה אהרן גדול ממשה ג' שנים
Aharon was not the firstborn, because Miriam was three years older than him, as the Midrash states, just like Aharon was three years older than Mosheh.
The Midrash that Tosafot refers to seems to be Shemot Rabbah 1:13:
I think there’s a bigger problem with Torah Codes than the one Al Berko mentioned; namely, even if we were guaranteed accuracy in our Sifrei Torah, we would have this problem.
That problem is that there are several ways to refer to things, any number of letters to start from, and any number of letters to skip. In other words: you can’t prove the Divinity ...
This supposed "later time" is that of King Yoshiyahu (Josiah). So a very straightforward piece of evidence against this notion is the following quotation in connection with King Amatziah, about 200 years before Yoshiyahu:
But the sons of the assassins he did not execute, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, which the Lord commanded saying: "...
It is not his invention. The phrase appears in the Mishnah in Tractate Avot in Chapter 2 Mishnah #9 or #10 (depending on your version):
אמר להם צאו וראו איזוהי דרך ישרה שידבק בה האדם רבי אליעזר אומר עין
טובה רבי יהושע אומר חבר טוב רבי יוסי אומר שכן טוב רבי שמעון אומר הרואה
את הנולד רבי אלעזר אומר לב טוב אמר להם רואה אני את דברי אלעזר בן ערך
Looking through a list of all of the occurrences of Melech in the Torah (really Tanach), here two possibilities:
לֹֽא־הִבִּ֥יט אָ֙וֶן֙ בְּיַעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹא־רָאָ֥ה עָמָ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל י״י֤ אֱלֹהָיו֙ עִמּ֔וֹ וּתְרוּעַ֥ת מֶ֖לֶךְ בּֽוֹ׃
He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Hashem his God is with him. The shout of a ...
It is mentioned in the Talmud.
רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו אין קוראין בחומשין בבית הכנסת משום כבוד צבור
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community. (Sefaria Translation)
Likewise in Rambam Hilchos Sefer Torah 10:
נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁעֶשְׂרים דְּבָרִים הֵן שֶׁבְּכָל ...
The gemara you reported in Nazir 40a taught that Leviim, Nazir and Metsora have a mitsva to shave with a blade(1). This is a Mitsvat asse, the Mitsvat asse pushes out the mitsvat lo taasse, the prohibition of shaving beard with a blade for metsora and leviim who need to shave the beard and of shaving temporal scalp for the nazir who shave the scalp only.
It's a famous dispute in the Gemara. According to Mar Zutra (and some say Mar Ukva), the Torah was originally given in Ktav Ivri. According to Rebbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer (in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i) the Torah was originally given in Ktav Ashurit. (Comparison photo) See Sanhedrin 21b through 22a for ...
I think the set of chumashim ‘Torat Haim’ has the most commentaries on the page, specifically classical ones critically edited. They include:
R. Saadia Gaon
R. Dovid Kimhi
R. Meir of Rothenburg
R. Ovadiah of Seforno
With the sacrifice, Avraham is given a direct order; orders are supposed to be carried out.
With Sodom, God says: "hey Avraham; just so you know, I'm deciding whether to destroy them." Why is God saying this? He is not giving Avraham any orders. At that point, Avraham realizes the hint -- anything you want to say about this?
There aren't so many options if you want it both one-volume and menukad. The two options I know are
The Koren Israel - Complete Humash, see it inside here. It uses a Koren font, incl. for Rashi
The new Hebrew-English Steinsaltz Humash, which just came out. I have received a preview edition of Bereishit and it is really beautiful. It has a new interpolated ...
In his commentary on the first instance of the word "Elohim" in the Torah, Genesis 1.1, R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, keying off of the similar word אלה ("these"), says:
... the name of God אלוה could designate the One Whose might and will encompasses all these objects together in unity. The One through Whom all the plurality, by everything being related to ...
From Rambam's Iggeret Techiat Hameitim:
Now for the answer to the second problem, which is why is the Resurrection not mentioned in the Torah? This is my reply. You must realize that, as is well known, we do not believe that the Torah comes from Moses. No, it is in its entirety the word of the Lord. The problem then becomes a quest of God's wisdom in ...
The 1861 Warsaw edition has 32 commentaries. It would appear that these are not just on the Torah proper and also that any Mikraot Gedolot with 32 peirushim are based on the this edition.
מקראות גדולות עם ל"ב פירושים : הלא המה: תרגום אונקלוס,
, תרגום שני לאסתר עם באור [מאת ר’ חיים פייבל ב"ר דוד זכריה]
, פירש"י שלם עם המראה ...