As part of the extensive research behind my RASHI'S DAUGHTERS, no subject intrigued me more than the elusive [and ubiquitous] legend that they wore tefillin. Indeed, when I first started studying Talmud and was introduced to Rashi, I was told that legend held that they were learned and wore tefillin. I actually tracked the earliest mention of this back to ...
According to this article by Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky (published in the Orthodox Union's Jewish Action Journal, Summer 2011), such a source does not exist. Apparently, this idea appeared in the late 20th century, and never before then.
One ornithologist writes:
"Many ornithologists have thought that the Bible picture of an eagle carrying her young was merely figurative, but in recent years
certain reliable observers have actually seen a parent bird let its
young rest for a moment on the feathered back - ...
Unfortunately, indeed we do not have prophets today, and Chazal say that the last prophets were Hagai, Zecharia and Malachi.
Rashi's momentous perush on most of the Bible and most of the gemara speak for themselves, however here are a few quotes (loose translations by me, except for the last Rashi) about his special work (this list can go on forever):
Did Rashi's works even reach the lands in which the Rambam lived?
To summarize Prof. Shamma Friedman's piece, scholars in the early 20th century assumed from Rambam's silence, that he did not have access to Rashi's works, and furthermore, that they were generally unavailable in Egypt at that time.
Additionally, we can infer from Rambam's early ...
Here is a way to read this Rashi other that advancing corporealism:
Usually, when we see Yad, it means to signify strength. So one might understand that Hashem will apply his strength against the Egyptians. However, Rashi here is saying that there is a metaphor here, of someone striking another. And that is an actual hand performing an act of hitting. To ...
The Rambam in Shemoneh Perakim, ch. 6, discusses the preferable attitude towards avoiding aveiros, and references this midrash.
After citing sentiments of the Nevi'im, such as (Mishlei 21:10) "נֶפֶשׁ רָשָׁע אִוְּתָה רָע" (the soul of a wicked person desires evil), and contrasting those with Chazal's statements such as "לפום צערא אגרא" (the reward is ...
The Shulchan Aruch 428:3 explains the mnemonic:
סימן לקביעת המועדים א"ת ב"ש ג"ר ד"ק ה"ץ ו"ף פירוש ביום א' של פסח יהיה לעולם ת"ב וסימן על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו ביום ב' בו שבועו' וביום ג' בו ר"ה ביום ד' בו קריאת התורה שהוא שמחת תורה ביום ה' בו צום כיפור ביום ו' בו פורים שעבר:
The way it works is the first letter of the ...
The Gemarah (Megillah 13a) states that the term Yehudi refers to one who rejects idolatry:
רבי יוחנן אמר לעולם מבנימן קאתי ואמאי קרי ליה יהודי על שום שכפר בע"ז שכל הכופר בע"ז נקרא יהודי כדכתיב (דניאל ג, יב) איתי גוברין יהודאין וגו'
The Maharsha cites the Gemarah in Sotah 10a that the name 'Yehuda' is meant to include the four letters of God's name. The ...
Very interesting question! However, Rashi is relying on the Midrash in Bereshit Raba (75:4):
מלאכים - אלו שלוחי בשר ודם. ורבנן אמרי מלאכים ממש.
Rashi, citing Rabanan, comments that the meaning is actual angels as opposed to messengers.
Rashi's source is a Gemara in Sotah (35a):
נמצא ארון ונושאיו וכהנים מצד אחד וישראל מצד אחד נשא ארון את נושאיו ועבר שנאמר (יהושע ד, יא) ויהי כאשר תם כל העם לעבור ויעבור ארון ה' והכהנים לפני העם
ועל דבר זה נענש עוזא שנאמר (דברי הימים א יג, ט) ויבאו עד גורן כידון וישלח עוזא את ידו לאחוז את הארון אמר לו הקב"ה עוזא נושאיו נשא עצמו לא כל שכן
It follows ...
This is not a euphemism for prostitution. Your link is to a text which abridges Rashi's commentary. The full text of Rashi is available (in Hebrew) here, and (in English) here.
אשה זונה • ת ״י פונדקייתא • מוכרת מני מזונות :
Inkeeper: זונה. Targum Jon. renders: Innkeeper, one who sells various foodstuffs (מזונות).
Rashi's point, in following Targum Yonasan'...
The consensus of the majority of traditional and modern authorities is that the "Rashi on the Rif" is not written by Rashi, but rather by a different scholar around the 13th and 14th centuries.
The following image is taken from the Oz V'hadar edition of Masectha Brachos, from page 3 of the introduction to the Rif. It is referring to a paragraph in which ...
The question here seems to be based on a problem with the translation.
The text of the Rashi in question is:
בן ק' כבן ע' ובן ע' כבן ה' בלא חטא
There is nothing there about "strength".
Rashi simply says that Avraham at the age of 100 was like 70, and at the age of 70 was like 5, without sin.
Compare the translation on Chabad.org:
one hundred years ...
Lots of acharonim theorized about this, but it turns out that this is essentially a Midrash Tanchuma (Buber edition Parshat Bereishit #11):
אמר ר' יצחק לא היה צריך לכתוב את התורה אלא מהחדש הזה לכם ולמה כתב מבראשית להודיע כח גבורתו שנאמר כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים
In fact Rashi mentions basically the same idea in his commentary to Tehillim (111:...
You're absolutely right to compare this statement to saying "our fathers" in tefillah. The mishnah in Bikkurim 1:4 makes the same comparison and rules that a convert can't say either one.
We don't pasken like that mishnah. Instead, we follow Rabbi Yehuda, quoted in a braisa in the Yerushalmi, who rules that a convert does say "our fathers" in Shemoneh ...
Rashi in Rosh Hashanah 33a holds that women may not perform mitzvot in which they are not obligated because of "bal tosif."
ד"ה הא נשים מעכבין. דפטורות לגמרי דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכי תקעי איכא בל תוסיף
Although Rashi's opinion rejected by most Rishonim, it does seem to make the story that his daughters wore tefillin more unlikely. (Tosafot in Eiruvin ...
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 ...
Apparently although the Mechilta understood the prohibition to be kidnapping it still recognizes the literal meaning of theft. This is implied by this mechilta and also somewhat implied by this mechilta.
Chida in Shem Hagedolim (page 7 of the file) quotes Seder Hadoros, who says that the commentary on Iyov isn't from Rashi. On that same page he also quotes someone who claims that none of the commentary on Neviim is from Rashi, although he disagrees with that.
They told him that Yaakov left a request of him to forgive the brothers and not take revenge on them as recorded in the next passuk. Rashi is saying that Yaakov never suspected Yosef of harboring vengeful thoughts, And never left this command. However the brothers misrepresented the truth in order to guaranty themselves peace. They apparently did suspect ...
In fact, there is no contradiction between Midrash Tanchuma and Vayikra Rabba. Both maintain that Chur died on the first day, rather than the second.
Tanchuma siman 19 reads:
וירא העם כי בושש משה
בא שש שעות.
נתכנסו ארבעים אלף שעלו עם ישראל ושני חרטומי מצרים עימהם, ושמותם יונו"ס ויומברו"ס, שהיו עושין לפני פרעה כל אותם כשפים, כמו שכתוב: ויעשו גם הם ...
I couldn't find any commentators on the Midrash addressing this issue. So, instead, I will offer a deflection of the assumptions as my answer.
I will argue: Fish, along with plants and bugs, were never meant to be immortal. Their life cycles and death were a matter of nature, from the very day that they were created. Therefore, there was no point in feeding ...
The final decree on S'dom was not made until they visited Avraham and Sarah. Their behavior sealed the doom of S'dom. Had Avraham not received them as he did, there would have been an argument not to destroy S'dom.
As the OP cited Rashi Vayeirah 18:2
One to bring the news [of Isaac’s birth] to Sarah, and one to overturn
Sodom, and one to heal Abraham, ...
Rav Ozer Alport in his Parsha Potpourri Points to Ponder addresses this issue:
Question: How was Lot able to intercede in order to save one of the cities (Tzo'ar) from destruction (19:18-22) when Avrohom, who was even greater and who argued even more on their behalf, was unable to do so? (Yad Yechezkel, Ayeles HaShachar, Derech Sicha)
This is one of the considerations that led R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes to question the attribution of Rashi on Maseches Taanis. He writes in the beginning of the Masechta:
וברוב פעמים פירושים של בעלי התוס' דומים לדברי רש"י ולפעמים הם אות באות
דומים לפירש"י מה שלא מצאנו בשום מקום
And many times the explanations of the Tosafists are similar to the
Artscroll [Teumrah 6b footnote 12 the last paragraph] quotes a Doros HaRishonim who conjectures, that ..
"in the case of Temurah, there existed two types of manuscripts, those
that originated from Babylonia and those that originated from Eretz
Yisroel. Not knowing which was the authentic version, scribes who
encountered two versions recorded both, ...
In his commentary on the Gemara, Rashi refers to Sefer Yetzirah several times. One example, on Menachos 29b:
אחת בה"י ואחת ביו"ד - חלק את שמו והטיף מכל אות ג' טיפין ומאותן טיפין נעשו מים ואש ואויר וכל העולם כולו וכן כתוב בספר יצירה:
The last phrase, וכן כתוב בספר יצירה ("and so it is written in Sefer Yetzirah") suggests that he actually studied the work, ...