Recent Activity on Sefaria פעילות אחרונה בספריא

Daniel Aronson published a new Source Sheet, Parashat Vaera / פָּרָשַׁת וָאֵרָא.
an hour ago
Lindsey Healey-Pollack published a new Source Sheet, Beauty.
6 hours ago
Shira Mytelka published a new Source Sheet, Middos of Hakaros Hatov and Controlling our Anger in Parshas Vaera.
6 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Concluding Poem 33 and 25 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

May He grant us merit to compose many books without end,¶
and may He magnify Torah and make it glorious.

13 hours ago
25 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 13:8 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

6. There are also quadriliteral nouns whose plurals appear with¶
a dagesh. These are those whose final vowel is a pataḥ.¶
For example, from ḥashmal the plural is ḥashmalim,¶
and likewise “like the appearance of ḥashmal”¶
(Ezekiel 8:2), where the lamed is doubled.¶
Similarly, from genaz (storehouse, treasury) we say¶
genazkha, genazkim.¶
Likewise from saraʿaf (as in “my anxious thoughts”),¶
all are open-vowel forms.¶
And from “princes shall come out of Egypt”¶
(Psalms 68:32), we derive ḥashman.¶
This is the word after which I named this book,¶
which I composed in Rome, in the year of Rome,¶
as explained in the introduction.

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 12:5 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4. However, with feminine forms they are numerous,¶
and they are useful for identification, since they are¶
dageshed in the middle radical (ayin), such as¶
megillah and meḥittah;¶
and with an added tav, such as tefillah and taḥannah.¶
There is also a single example with an added mem at the end,¶
namely ḥinnam, derived from the root ḥanan.¶

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 11:6 and 6 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

5. And the general rule is this: ¶
Every noun that you find consisting of two root letters, where the second letter appears in the plural, in pronominal suffixes, and in the feminine form, belongs to the class of doubled roots. Such nouns always have one of the short vowels at the beginning. Even those that are pointed with a qamats according to the tradition—such as yam (“sea”) in “the Salt Sea” (Genesis 14:3), or tam (“perfect”) in “perfect and upright” (Job 1:1), and the like—when they appear in the plural, with suffixes, or with the feminine ending, they become a pataḥ-vocalized, as in temimim, temah. Those with a tsere appear with a ḥiriq, such as shen → shino, ḥen → ḥano. Those with a ḥolem appear with three vowels, as from ḥoq: ḥuqqo, ḥuqqai, ḥuqqam. And when the middle radical is pointed with a sheva, then the first radical takes a ḥatef-qamats, as in “You guided them in Your strength” (Exodus 15:13), and likewise ḥuqqekha, ḥuqqekhem, as Rashi explained on “my strength and song is Yah” (Exodus 15:2). However, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra rightly challenged him there—see his commentary.

13 hours ago
6 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 10:4 and 3 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. And the general rule is this: everything I have stated in this principle and in the preceding one—that any noun of two letters which has an added tav at the end, preceded by a ḥiriq or a shuruq, or which has a quiescent yod at the end, whether it consists of two moving letters, or of one, or whether it has a moving yod after two root letters—belongs to the class of roots whose third radical is he (nḥei lamed-he). Examine this carefully and you will find it to be so.¶
¶
What I said—specifically “after two root letters”—was meant to exclude the sound (i.e., complete/regular) roots and the nḥei ʿayin roots. For when a yod appears in sound roots, it comes after three root letters, as in ḥamishiyyot and the like; and in nḥei ʿayin roots it comes after the first letter, as in bayit, zayit, and so on.¶
¶
I also did not include in this rule every noun that has a final nun preceded by a ḥolam, such as ratzon, kalon, lest you be misled by nouns in which the nun is a root letter, such as aron, adon, and likewise madon, which is from the nḥei ʿayin class, with root letters d-w-n.

13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 9:4 and 3 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. The patterns just mentioned sometimes also appear¶
with an added tav at the end,¶
such as ʿamit and tsofit.¶
Some occur with a final ḥolam,¶
such as aḥot and ḥamot.¶
In the construct state and with suffixes¶
they revert to sheva,¶
as ʿamitkha, aḥotkha, ḥamotkha, and the like. There are also forms with sheva at the beginning¶
even without construction,¶
such as ḥanit and shevit.¶
At times they appear with a final shuruq,¶
such as galut and ḥazut,¶
and with an initial sheva,¶
as shevut and pedut.¶
I have already explained the method of their pluralization¶
in the Third Treatise,¶
Thirteenth Principle, Section Five. There are also forms with an added nun at the end,¶
such as ratson and qalon.¶
In these, the quiescent vav¶
stands in place of the final radical he,¶
and the nun is an addition.¶
Others are found with an added nun¶
and a mobile yod in place of the final he,¶
such as binyan, inyan, and qinyan.

13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 8:3 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

2. However, nouns of the class with a quiescent middle letter ayin that come on these two patterns do not change at all. ¶
Thus, from qamah and tsarah, in the construct state qamat, tsarat, and in the plural qamim, tsarim, the qamats does not change. ¶
Likewise, those with a tsere from quiescent ayin roots: one says tsid, shiv, tsidah, shivah; and in the construct tsadat. ¶
Likewise shivath avdekha (“the life of your servant”), where the tsere does not change. The reason for this is that roots with a quiescent ayin always require a full (long) vowel to indicate the quiescent root vav that follows the qamats; therefore they do not undergo change. ¶
But in safah, manah, pe’ah, me’ah, where the long vowel at the first radical does not serve to indicate quiescence, they do change, and one says sefat, pe’at, and the like. Remember this well, for it is a great general rule. ¶
I will speak further about this in the class of doubled roots in the Eleventh Principle, Section Four. ¶
Those that come with a root he at the end I will explain in the following principle.

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 7:5 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4. And remember that the mem and the tav that appear at the beginning of these forms are always vocalized with pataḥ, even without the presence of a guttural letter. One additional case is found with an added alef at the beginning, as in aḥoti be-ozneikhem (“my utterance in your ears”), whose root is ḥavah. ¶
¶
The general rule is this: any noun that you find with an initial mem or tav vocalized with ḥiriq or pataḥ, and with the following letter bearing a sheva, and which is not from the class of complete roots (that is, it does not contain three fully vocalized radicals), belongs to the class of roots whose third radical is he (naḥei lamed-he). ¶
¶
Only two exceptions are found with an initial tav bearing sheva, namely ta‘alah and tela’ah.¶

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 6:4 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. However, many cases are found in which the final he is a root letter. In such cases it is always preceded by a segol, as in miqneh, miqreh, and mishneh. If the first radical is a guttural, as in maḥaneh (“camp”) or maʿaseh (“deed”), the same rule applies. By this they are distinguished from the feminine he and from an added he, for those always have qamats before them. Moreover, these forms do not change in the construct state or with pronominal suffixes, except that the segol changes to a tsere, as in maḥaneh Dan (“the camp of Dan”) and mirʿeh ʿadarim (“a pasture of flocks”). However, when a tav is added at the beginning, a root he is never found. And with pronominal suffixes the he always drops away, as in miqnehu, mishnehu, maʿasehu. Likewise with suffixes using vav for the masculine, as in yadehu (“his hand”) and raglehu (“his foot”). In forms such as miqni, miqnekha, miqnam, and the like, the he is absent in all of them.

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 5:4 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. ḥeṭʾ (“sin”) also belongs to this pattern. It would properly have been ḥaṭaʾ, but it has been lightened, just as a sheva is lightened from the pattern paʿal, as I explained earlier. Now the ḥet of ḥeṭʾ has a tsere, following the pattern of those nouns with five vowels. Therefore, with pronominal suffixes the ḥet comes with a segol, as in ḥeṭo and ḥeṭam, as explained in the Third Principle of the First Treatise, Section Six; and in the plural ḥeṭaʾim. But in the phrase derekh ḥaṭaʾim (“the way of sinners”), it is an adjective belonging to the class of doubled forms, which do not change. Accordingly, in the construct state and with plural suffixes one says ḥaṭaʾei, as in ḥaṭaʾei (“sinners of”) and ʿami u-ḥaṭaʾeha yashmid (“He will destroy my people and its sins”).

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 4:7 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

5. There are also cases in which a mobile vav appears in singular, such as ʾon (“iniquity”), ʿol (“yoke”), mot (“death”), and tokh (“midst”), with a qamats or a segol. These have no parallel among the regular (complete) patterns, as I mentioned in the Third Treatise, Principle Two, Section Seven. In the construct state and with pronominal suffixes, the vav becomes quiescent in most of them, as in betokh ha-ʿir (“in the midst of the city”) and mot yesharim (“the death of the upright”). Likewise with suffixes: lifnei moto (“before his death”), el tokho (“into its midst”), mehashivat ʾonakh (“from turning away your iniquity”). When a he is added at the end, the vav remains mobile, as in mota and ʿola. We also find a mobile vav before a suffix, as in be-ʿavla asher ʿasa (“in the wrongdoing that he committed”). This sheva belongs to the same pattern, but it has been lightened and the segol has changed to a sheva because of the quiescence of the aleph, whose proper vowel is a sheva.

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 3:3 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

2. And the general rule is this: any noun of this class that you find with an added mem at the beginning, vocalized with a qamats, and which in its four inflectional forms takes either a mem or a tav with sheva, belongs to the class of nouns with a quiescent middle letter (nḥei ʿayin). There are two such nouns that appear with an added tav at the end, namely nofet and bōshet. I have already informed you, in the Third Treatise, Principle Eleven, Section Five, that a tav of this kind appears with a dagesh when pronominal suffixes are attached, as in levashtakha and levōshet. Accordingly, one should likewise say nofeti, noftekha from nofet. There is also one example with an added mem at the end, namely reqem.

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 2:5 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And only a few are found in which the mem is vocalized with a shuruq, such as musar and mutsaq. ¶
There are also forms found without any added letter and with a feminine he, such as shanah, ‘etsah, de‘ah, and ledah. ¶
In the construct state, the tsere in these forms changes to a sheva, and the qamats changes to a pataḥ, as explained in the First Treatise, Second Principle. There are also two forms found without the feminine he, namely tse (as in “say to him, go out”) and bul (as in “the produce of the mountains”). ¶
Their roots are yatsa and yakhol.

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Fourth Treatise 1:4 and 3 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. Know that every noun you find with an initial mem bearing a pataḥ¶
and followed by a dagesh is a noun deficient in an initial nun.¶
There are also two such nouns with an added he at the beginning¶
and a dagesh following it,¶
such as ruaḥ ve-hatsalah (“relief and deliverance”)¶
and hakkarat penehem (“the recognition of their faces”),¶
whose roots are natsal and nakhar.¶
¶
There are also two nouns of this class that appear¶
without any added letter at the beginning,¶
namely si and sig,¶
as in ya‘aleh la-shamayim si’o (“his height rises to the heavens”)¶
and ve-khi sig lo (“and when he mocks him”),¶
whose roots are nasa and nasag.¶
However, no general rule can be derived from these,¶
for they are very few.¶

13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 13:7 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

6. The letter yod is most often found added at the beginning of proper nouns,¶
such as Yitsḥaq, Yaʿaqov, Yitshar, and the like.¶
It is also found in words such as yalqut and yanshuf,¶
and sometimes with a ḥolam,¶
as in yanshuf and ʿorev,¶
following the pattern of sappir and yahalom. At the end of proper nouns it is found only rarely,¶
as in nahari and naʿari and a few similar cases.¶
However, in words such as yehudi, mitsri, and ʿivri,¶
the final yod is not an added letter,¶
but rather a marker of relation or attribution,¶
as will be explained in the chapter on categories.

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 12:7 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

6. And you already know that nouns whose final vowel is a qamats¶
change to apataḥ in the construct state,¶
as in miqdash Hashem tameʾ,¶
mishkan Hashem,¶
mikol maʾakhal Parʿoh. Some also appear with a feminine he at the end,¶
with the mem pointed with a ḥiriq, a pataḥ, or a segol,¶
as in milḥamah, mamlakhah, memshalah.¶
In the construct state one says¶
milḥemat Kenaʿan,¶
mamlekhet ʿOg,¶
lememshelet ha-yom. This pattern is also found outside the construct,¶
as in misgeret ṭofaḥ,¶
et ha-migʿeret,¶
or with a ḥolam,¶
as in mishqoleth and maḥagoreth.¶
I have already written their rules¶
in Principle Ten. There are also nouns that appear¶
with an added mem at the end,¶
such as pitʾom and shilshom,¶
though these are few.¶
But the mem that appears at the end of nouns¶
to indicate the plural,¶
as in devarim and zekharim,¶
is not called an added letter¶
but a functional one.¶
It is preceded by a full ḥiriq,¶
that is, with a yod.¶
When such a noun enters the construct state,¶
the mem drops away¶
and the yod remains by itself,¶
and the preceding letter is pointed with a tsere,¶
as in zeqenei and divrei.

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 11:5 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4. And I will now explain the difference between them by way of an example.¶
¶
Suppose there are Reʾuven and Shimʿon who together own a single maidservant.¶
Of her we say: “This is their maidservant,”¶
that is, shifḥatam, belonging jointly to Reʾuven and Shimʿon.¶
¶
But if each of them owns one maidservant,¶
we say of them: shifḥotam (“their maidservants”).¶
¶
And if each of them owns two or three maidservants,¶
we say of them: shifḥotehem (“their maidservants” in the fuller plural).¶
¶
I have already resolved to compose a separate book¶
in which I will explain all the grammatical remarks¶
made by Rabbi Shelomo Yirḥi of blessed memory¶
in his commentary on the Torah,¶
if the blessed Name should prolong my life.¶

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 10:7 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

But know that the first segol never changes to a ḥiriq,¶
but only to a pataḥ, as in ʿatarato, tifʾarato, and the like—¶
just as in regel → raglo, and similar forms.

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 9:4 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. And there are nouns that are feminine in the singular, marked with a final¶
he, yet form their plural with yod–mem at the end, following the pattern¶
of masculine plurals. Thus, for example: from shanah (“year”) comes¶
shanim; from nemalah (“ant”) comes nemalim; and similar cases.¶
¶
Likewise, some masculine nouns occasionally form their plural according to¶
the feminine pattern, such as av → avot, and bor → borot, and others¶
like them.¶
¶
And there are nouns that occur in both ways, that is, sometimes with a¶
masculine plural and sometimes with a feminine plural, such as:¶
from ḥagor come ḥagurim and ḥagurot;¶
from dor come dorim and dorot.¶
¶
All of this will be explained properly in the chapter on measures.¶

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 8:5 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4. And those cases in which the final he is a root letter¶
belong to the class of roots whose third radical is he¶
(nḥei lamed-he),¶
as I will explain in the Fourth Treatise,¶
Principle Seven, Sections Two and Three.¶
There I will give you rules by which you may distinguish¶
a merely added he from one that is truly part of the root.¶

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 7:6 and 6 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

2. Now, the seven letters that are used at the beginning of nouns¶
have the mnemonic m-sh-h and k-l-b.¶
And since, because of them, the vowel-points of nouns do not change,¶
there is no need to explain them here.¶
Their rules will be explained in the chapter on the servile letters.¶

13 hours ago
6 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 6:4 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. Likewise, with plural pronominal suffixes,¶
all of the suffix forms are pronounced with a sheva at the beginning,¶
such as devarav, ziqnav, devarekha, ziqnekha,¶
except for those whose suffix ends with a mem or a nun.¶
In those cases it is necessary to lighten the vowels¶
and to change the qamats or tsere into a sheva;¶
this would then result in two shevas,¶
as in *dvarhem*, *zqenhem*—which is impossible. Therefore the first sheva is changed to a ḥiriq,¶
and one says divreihem, ziqneihem, and the like.

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 5:4 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. Know also that the vowel following an initial sheva¶
does not change except when it is a qamats,¶
as in ketav (“writing”), yaqar (“precious”), and the like.¶
I have already explained, in the Second Principle, Section Two,¶
the manner in which qamats changes. And when these forms come into the plural construct state,¶
the initial sheva changes to a ḥiriq,¶
as in kitvei and yiqrei.¶
The reason for this I will explain in the next principle.

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 4:3 and 3 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

2. But when the second vowel is not segol,¶
as in ʾotsar (“treasury”), kokhav (“star”),¶
ʿolel (“child”), and the like,¶
the initial ḥolam does not change at all.¶
As for the qamats or tsere at the end,¶
I have already written the manner of their change¶
in the Second Principle, Section Two. Now, I wrote concerning nouns of six vowel-points,¶
in the Third Principle, Section Seven,¶
that because of ḥet or ʿayin¶
the final segol changes to pataḥ;¶
know that the same rule applies here as well,¶
as in ʾoraḥ (“path”) and kovaʿ (“helmet”),¶
so one says ʾorḥo, kivʿo, and so forth. But when the middle radical is one of the gutturals,¶
the ḥatef qamats moves under the middle radical,¶
and the first radical takes a qamats,¶
as from ʾohel (“tent”):¶
va-yeṭ ʾaholah (“and he pitched his tent,” Gen. 35:21);¶
and from toʾar (“appearance”):¶
mah toʾaro (“what is his appearance?” 1 Sam. 28:14). Yet sometimes the first radical remains with a ḥolam,¶
as in toʾaro mi-benei ʾadam¶
(“his appearance more than that of men,” Isa. 52:14).

13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 3:9 and 9 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

8. Furthermore, all of these are accented on the final syllable (milraʿ),¶
whereas all the forms with pataḥ are always accented on the penultimate¶
(milʿel), like those with six and five vowel-points.¶
By this as well they are distinguished from those with two qamats vowels,¶
for those are always accented milraʿ,¶
such as zahav (“gold”), davar (“word”), and ʿashan (“smoke”),¶
though there are a few exceptional cases.¶

13 hours ago
9 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 2:9 and 9 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

7. Know that the second vowel never changes¶
except when it is a qamats, tsere, or segol.¶
Qamats and tsere change to a pataḥ in the singular construct,¶
as I wrote above;¶
and all three change to a sheva in the plural construct¶
and in some plural pronominal suffixes,¶
as I will explain in Principle Six. But in the other types of change they do not change at all,¶
except for a segol,¶
as I will explain in Principle Three.

13 hours ago
9 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise 1:7 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

5. Likewise with nouns such as mapel in¶
“making the ephah small” (Amos 8:6),¶
which is measured according to the same pattern as makel (“staff”)¶
in “a staff in the hand” (Ezek. 39:9).¶
¶
For mapel comes from a root defective in the first radical nun,¶
with the mem added as a prefix,¶
whereas makel comes from a complete root and the mem is a root letter.¶
¶
Similarly, maqom (“place”) is measured according to the pattern of¶
shalom (“peace”):¶
maqom belongs to the class of roots with a quiescent middle radical,¶
while shalom comes from a complete root.¶
¶
Yet in the construct state and in the plural there is no distinction between them,¶
and their vowel patterns change in the same way.¶
I will explain each of these individually,¶
according to its pattern and its principle.¶

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Third Treatise, Subject 1 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

On the elucidation of the noun patterns,¶
divided into thirteen principles:

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 13:15 and 15 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

Be strong, and let us be strengthened.¶
May the scribe not be harmed.

13 hours ago
15 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 12:15 and 15 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Pattern Hitpa‘el¶
I have already included it within the discussion of the pattern Paʿal,¶
and there is no need to repeat it.¶

13 hours ago
15 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 11:13 and 13 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

However, the true rule is that the e-i-t-n letters of this pattern¶
ought always to come with a pataḥ,¶
as in lo yimmad (Hosea 2:1),¶
yiddal kevod Ya‘aqov (Isaiah 17:4).¶
And when the middle root letter is vocalized,¶
it is doubled, as in yitammu ḥatta’im (Psalms 104:35),¶
nishessu ha-batim (Zechariah 14:2). And when the first root letter is guttural,¶
the e-i-t-n letters take a tsere,¶
as in ve-al taḥat (Deuteronomy 1:21),¶
ve-al aḥateh ani (Jeremiah 17:18).¶
And sometimes this occurs even without a guttural,¶
as in va-eqal be-‘eineha (Genesis 16:5),¶
va-tiq‘a kaf yarekh (Genesis 32:25). There are also lightened forms,¶
such as yidmu ka-even (Exodus 15:16),¶
va-yitammu yemei bekhi (Deuteronomy 34:8),¶
where the expected forms would be yidmu, yitammu.¶
And there are those who say that these are from Qal,¶
from forms like va-yidom and va-tetom,¶
as I wrote above.

13 hours ago
13 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 10:13 and 13 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

8.¶
And know that there are four roots whose final letter is he¶
that never becomes quiescent.¶
Your mnemonic for them is taganakh,¶
that is: tamah (to be astonished),¶
gavah (to be high),¶
ganah (to reproach),¶
kamah (to yearn). Therefore they are vocalized with a qamats and a pataḥ¶
like the strong roots,¶
and not like roots quiescent in he,¶
which always have two qamats.¶
Accordingly, the open forms take a mappiq¶
to indicate their completeness. Thus, from gavah:¶
va-yigbah Hashem Tseva’ot (Isaiah 5:16),¶
ya‘an ki gavhu benot Tsiyon (Isaiah 3:16). From kamah:¶
kamah lekha vesari (Psalms 63:2);¶
and one may say kamahte, kamahati,¶
even though such forms are not attested. From nogah:¶
lo yigah sheviv esho (Job 18:5). From tamāh:¶
hemah ra’u ken tamahu (Psalms 48:6),¶
al titmah ‘al ha-ḥefets (Ecclesiastes 5:7),¶
with a mappiq. But va-yitmahmehah (Genesis 19:16),¶
and likewise hitmahmehu and tamahu (Isaiah 29:9),¶
belong to the root mahmah,¶
which is quadriliteral;¶
therefore they are not included among the four mentioned above. And there is a dispute concerning¶
va-telah erets Mitsrayim (Genesis 47:13),¶
whether its root is la’ah or lahah;¶
from it comes ke-mithlahleh ha-yoreh (Proverbs 26:18).¶
But this controversy does not concern me,¶
for I do not engage in hidden matters.

13 hours ago
13 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 9:7 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4.¶
And all the other patterns proceed in this same manner,¶
except that in them a tsere most often appears¶
before the quiescent aleph in the past tense,¶
when it occurs,¶
and likewise in the first-person forms,¶
as in niqre’ta, niqre’ti,¶
malle’ta, malle’ti,¶
himtza’ta, himtza’ti.¶
And I have already written to you¶
that many roots quiescent in the first letter aleph¶
come according to the pattern with a tsere,¶
and all of them are intransitive verbs,¶
such as male, sane, yare, and the like;¶
see there.

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 8:19 and 19 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Participle¶
mitkonen.¶
The infinitive and the imperative are hitbonen, like the past tense.¶
The future tense is etbonen, yitbonen, titbonen, and so on.¶

13 hours ago
19 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 7:12 and 12 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Infinitive¶
and the imperative come with a he with a hiriq at the beginning¶
and a dagesh following it, as with the strong roots,¶
as in hakhon.¶
And likewise akhon, yakhon, takhon, nakhon, and so on.

13 hours ago
12 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 6:15 and 15 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

12. The Pattern Hitpa‘el¶
This entire pattern appears in full form,¶
as from yalad: va-yityaldu (Numbers 1:18),¶
and from ya‘ats: va-yitya‘atsu (Psalms 83:4).¶
And sometimes the yod is changed into a mobile vav,¶
as from yada‘: be-hitvada‘ Yosef (Genesis 45:1),¶
and from yada: ve-hitvada ‘alav (Leviticus 16:21).¶

13 hours ago
15 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 5:15 and 15 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And in the future tense it comes with a dagesh,¶
as in eqach, yiqach, tiqach;¶
the dagesh stands in place of the lamed of the first root letter.¶
No other lamed is found to drop except this one,¶
and this is because of the frequent use of this root.¶
And sometimes even the dagesh itself is dropped,¶
and this occurs only when the middle root letter has a sheva,¶
as in va-yiqḥu elekha (Numbers 19:2),¶
and ve-eqḥah pat leḥem (Genesis 18:5).¶
In both of these the qof is soft,¶
just as from the root nasa‘ it is said¶
va-yis‘u and va-yaḥanu (Numbers 33:6),¶
and va-yis’u oto banav (Genesis 50:13),¶
where the samekh and the shin are soft¶
because of their frequent use. And there are those who say that the language of “taking” has two roots,¶
laqach and naqach:¶
the past tenses and participles come from laqach and naqach,¶
and the future tenses from naqach,¶
just as the language of “going” likewise has two roots,¶
halakh and yalakh:¶
the past tenses and participles come from halakh,¶
and the future tenses from yalakh,¶
as in elekh, yelekh, and so on.¶
But the first explanation is the more correct.

13 hours ago
15 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 4:11 and 11 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And now I shall turn to explain the defective roots,¶
and afterward the quiescent roots,¶
and afterward the doubled roots, briefly.¶

13 hours ago
11 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 3:11 and 11 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Future¶
The letters e-i-t-n appear with a ḥataf-qamats,¶
to indicate the identifying sign of the pattern,¶
as in kalil tuqṭar (Leviticus 6:15).¶
And if the first root letter is a guttural,¶
the first root letter is vocalized with a qamats¶
and the middle root letter with a ḥataf-qamats,¶
as in ya‘amod ḥai (Leviticus 16:10),¶
yeḥoram kol rekhusho (Ezra 10:8).

13 hours ago
11 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 2:14 and 14 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Future¶
In this pattern, the e-i-t-n letters appear with a sheva, like its prototype,¶
and the first root letter has three dots, as in the past tense,¶
as in efkod, yifkod, and so on.¶
But when the middle root letter is a guttural or a resh,¶
the kubuts changes to a ḥolam throughout the entire pattern,¶
as in ki lo forash (Numbers 15:34),¶
and umarak ve-shataf (Leviticus 6:21),¶
as will be explained in the chapter on poetry, in the ninth poem.

13 hours ago
14 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Second Treatise 1:20 and 19 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

12 (First edition: 13). The Imperative It always appears with an added heʾ,¶
as in hippared naʾ me-ʿalay¶
(Genesis 13:9).¶
But the future does not require the heʾ,¶
because the ʾe-i-t-n< letters at the beginning¶
produce a strong dagesh. The general rule is that in this conjugation¶
the nun, the heʾ,¶
and the letters of ʾe-i-t-n<¶
all take a ḥiriq,¶
even the alef of ʾe-i-t-n<¶
(for the most part),¶
as in ʾanokhi ʾishavaʿ¶
(Genesis 21:24). This is not the case in qal,¶
as I explained earlier.¶
And the first radical (peʾ)¶
always has a dagesh with a qamats,¶
except when the peʾ is one of the guttural letters¶
ʾalef–ḥet–ʿayin–resh,¶
in which case the heʾ¶
and the letters of ʾe-i-t-n<¶
take a tsere,¶
as in heʾasef, yeʿavor, and the like,¶
as will be explained in the chapter¶
“Shirah,” in the ninth song.

13 hours ago
19 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 13:7 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And in the Name of Him who is One, and none beside Him, I begin the Second Treatise.¶

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 12:3 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

1. The first kind is when the corresponding qal stem is intransitive, as in qam, from which comes huqam. Its meaning is the same as that of the pu‘al stem—namely, that it indicates an action performed upon it by another.¶

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 11:6 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

4. The fourth kind consists of verbs that are intransitive in the qal stem and also in this stem, such as “u-Far‘oh hiqriv” (Exodus 14:10), and “va-ya‘teq mi-sham” (Genesis 12:8), which are equivalent to qarav and ‘ataq. Ibn Ezra said that the object is omitted in these cases: in “u-Far‘oh hiqriv” the object maḥanehu (“his camp”) is lacking; and likewise in “va-ya‘teq mi-sham” the object oholoh (“his tent”) is lacking; and so too in other places. And there are verbs in this stem that in one context are intransitive and in another are transitive, such as “heḥepir Levanon qamal” (Isaiah 33:9), which is intransitive, but “yav’ish ve-yaḥpir” (Proverbs 10:22; 23:5), which is transitive; likewise “ve-khen et ha-‘ir lo hirḥiqu” (Genesis 44:4) is intransitive, whereas “hirḥiq mimennu et pesha‘einu” (Psalms 103) is transitive. Similarly, “ki ya‘ashir ish” (Psalms 49:17) is intransitive, while “birkat Hashem hi ta‘ashir” >(Proverbs 10) is transitive. And behold, this stem too produced a derivative, which is called the hof‘al stem.

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 10:4 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

3. And some grammarians say that even in the future tense one should not use the pu‘al and hof‘al stems except in two persons, since the first-person forms are lacking from them. They say this because only one such form is found in Scripture, namely “mi-beten la-qever uval” (Job 10:19), which is a future form from the hof‘al stem of a verb with a quiescent initial yod. But it seems to me that for this reason one should not refrain from using them. For how many words do we use by way of reasoning even though they are not found explicitly in Scripture—and all the more so in cases like these, where at least one instance is found in Scripture. Why, then, should we not use them?

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Genesis 48:11 and Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 9:7

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Deuteronomy 16:1 and Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 9:7

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 10:2 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

1. The fourth stem is called the pu‘al stem. It is a derivative of pi‘el and has only one meaning: it is always passive, effected by another—namely, its parent, the pi‘el stem, from which it receives its form. For this reason it too is geminated like its parent. ¶
¶
For example, if you say of the parent sipper, kipper, you say of the derivative suppar, kuppar. And note that the agent—the one who tells or the one who makes atonement—is not mentioned; that is, it is not specified whether the doer is male or female, singular or plural. Therefore it is called a stem in which the name of the agent is not mentioned.¶

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Genesis 31:28 and Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 9:7

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Exodus 20:8 and Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 9:7

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 9:9 and 7 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

5. And know that this occurs only with verbs that are derived from nouns, such as those I have mentioned, and as I shall further explain in the chapter on the categories. Moreover, you are not permitted to form such verbs from every noun-derived verb at will, but only from those that are found in Scripture. And this stem as well produced a derivative, which is called the pu‘al stem.¶

13 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 8:7 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And there are nif‘al forms that are not found in the qal stem, such as nishba‘, nilḥam, nish‘an, nizhar, nikhna‘, and the like. These are explained as deriving from qal, as will be clarified at the end of the thirteenth principle.¶

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 7:4 and 3 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

Therefore I shall give a sign by which one may easily distinguish them, and it is this: for every verb before which the word mah (“what”) can properly be placed is a transitive verb, such as mah shamar, mah akhal, mah shatah, and the like. But with intransitive verbs it is not appropriate to say mah, for it is not possible to say mah yashav, mah ‘amad, mah yashen, mah bakhah.¶

13 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 6:8 and 4 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

7. And with regard to the speaker speaking about himself, the imperative does not apply at all, for a person does not command himself. Yet sometimes the imperative appears in the language of request and supplication, especially when directed toward the Exalted Name, as is frequently found in the Book of Psalms. And sometimes the words na or anna are added to indicate entreaty, such as selaḥ na (Amos 6), anna Hashem hoshi‘a na (Psalms 118). The imperative is also sometimes found in the language of irony or sharp exhortation, such as semaḥ baḥur be-yaldutekha (Ecclesiastes 11:9), bo’u Beit-El (Amos 4:4), and the like — though such cases are few.

13 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 5:9 and 5 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

Printer’s error: You may also recognize them somewhat by other signs that I shall now give you. You must know that verbal actions do not enter into construct, nor does a construct form attach to them. Therefore, when you find participles and passive forms in construct, such as ro‘eh tson (Genesis 4:2), shomrei mishmeret (Numbers 3:28), ge’ulei Hashem (Psalms 107:2), and the like, they are adjectives and not participles. Another sign: know that every participle after which comes the word et is certainly a participle and not an adjective, such as “koh amar Hashem … ‘al ha-ro‘im ha-ro‘im et ‘ammi” (Jeremiah 23:2). The first is an adjective, for it is not in construct, and the second is a participle. And included in this rule are oto, otakh, oti, otam, and all pronominal forms that indicate the object. Likewise, when they are joined with first- or second-person pronouns, such as anokhi holekh (Genesis 25:32), asher attah ‘oseh la-‘am (Exodus 18:14), anachnu ‘osim (II Kings 7:9), attem ‘osim (Jeremiah 44:7) — all of these are participles and not adjectives. For just as you cannot say attah paqad or anokhi paqad, so too you cannot say attah poqed or anokhi poqed as adjectives, but only as participles. There are additional good signs, but these that we have written suffice for now.]

13 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 4:23 and 13 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

12. Be it well known to you that in the languages of the nations there are three kinds of past tense: the simple past, the imperfect past, and the pluperfect (past already completed).¶

13 hours ago
13 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 3:16 and 13 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

6. And verbs in which the first and third root letters are identical are not found at all among the complete verbs. The word ye‘al‘u dam (Job 39:30) does not have the root ‘ala‘, as I shall explain in the book HaHarkavah. But among roots that are not complete, such cases are found, such as hayah and natan, and a few others. They are found more frequently among nouns, especially with the letter shin, such as shemesh, shoresh, shalosh.¶

13 hours ago
13 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 2:16 and 9 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And the second reason is that their meaning is not the same: for one applies to the third-person feminine plural, and the other to the second-person feminine plural. Likewise, even though two distinct forms are made from tifqod, they are not called identical, for one is for the second person and the other for the third person; and one is not substituted for the other. Therefore, they are not called identical.¶

13 hours ago
9 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, First Treatise 1:19 and 12 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And there are three persons: the third person, the second person, and the first person speaking for himself.¶

13 hours ago
12 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Index 4:14 and 2 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The signs are completed. And in the name of Him Who dwells in eternity:¶
I shall begin the book, which gives beautiful words.¶
Completed, completed,¶
completed.

13 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Index 3:1 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Third Treatise¶
On the elucidation of the noun patterns of complete nouns, and it too is divided into thirteen principles:¶
The First Principle. On the elucidation of what is meant by the term “pattern,” and how nouns are patterned:

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Index 2:1 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The Second Treatise¶
On the elucidation of the differences between each verb pattern and the others with respect to the vowel points, and I will explain them as well in pairs:¶
The First Principle. On the elucidation of the vowel patterns of the qal and Nif‘al forms of complete verbs, and their identifying signs:

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Index 1:1 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

The First Treatise¶
On the elucidation of the root categories of verbs, and it is divided into thirteen principles:¶
The First Principle. On the division of all the roots of the language into eight parts:

13 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Introduction 14 and 8 others »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

And further, I divided each principle into smaller parts and marked them in the manner of א ב ג ד ה ו, and so on; the benefit of this is well known and needs no explanation.¶

13 hours ago
8 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Sefer HaBachur, Foreword to Mantua Edition 2 history »
Version: Trans. Betzalel Avraham Feinstein, 2026 (English)

At the age of forty I was, when time sent me forth from Venice and I came to Rome. There I was questioned concerning the composition of this book, and in it I responded to matters as my heart saw fit. And behold, the Lord has preserved my life since then for thirty years, and now I am as one of seventy years, yet even today I remain strong — as my strength was then, so is my strength now — to go forth and come back in the battle of grammar, Scripture, and tradition. For since that time, other views have arisen within me, and new understandings that I did not previously know. In addition to this, from that day onward I discovered that I had omitted certain matters that were worthy of being written, yet I did not write them; and I also wrote things that I wish I had not written — I regret having done so. This should not be wondered at, for we find the same among our Rabbis of blessed memory, who said something in their youth and later retracted it in their old age, as we find that Rava retracted his view in that matter, and likewise Rav Ashi retracted what he had said in the first edition, and the law follows the later edition, as stated at the end of the chapter ‘One Whose Dead Lies Before Him.’ And just as their thoughts were, so are my thoughts; and I am no better than my forefathers. Therefore I resolved with my heart to print this book a third time, to add to it and to remove from it. In this way I shall improve the latter kindness beyond the former, so as not to go after young students teaching them false premises, invalid proofs, and unsound rules — which the students who come after them would then learn, resulting, God forbid, in the desecration of the Divine Name. Therefore, in this version I shall correct what is distorted, straighten what is crooked, repair what is flawed, and remove stumbling blocks from the path of my people. Thus God will be with me. And so I shall begin this introduction as it stands.

13 hours ago
Jeffrey Mensch published a new Source Sheet, Fulfilling the Torah Before Sinai.
15 hours ago
Rina O. published a new Source Sheet, Bs"d Why Does Megilat Esther Not Mention the Name of G-d Even Once? -- Rabbi Sacks' Adaptation of a Sicha of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
17 hours ago
Yaakov Trump published a new Source Sheet, Why Exile is so Difficult?.
18 hours ago
Elishá Mizraji translated Sulam on Zohar, Vaera 17:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

Come and see, this... Come and see, this land which is Malchut, is called when it is Panim ve Panim with Zeir Ainpin, which is called Israel, by the name of Land of Israel. And ask: Jacob, who is Israel, why does he not rule over it like Moses? Is he not also a vehicle for Zeir Ainpin, which is called Israel? For it is written: "And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with El Shaddai," which is the name of the bride before she unites with Zeir Ainpin. (Note: letter 14) And no more.

1 day ago
Elishá Mizraji translated Sulam on Zohar, Vaera 16:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

For He established it upon the seas: These are the seven pillars, which are the seven sefirot of Zeir Ainpin, upon which the earth rests, and they are the seven days and the Sea of Kinneret, which is Malchut, which rules over them. Rabbi Yehuda said: Do not say that it rules over them, for Malchut does not rule over the seven sefirot of Zeir Ainpin, but the Sea of Kinneret is filled with them. For Malchut receives from them. “And He established it upon the rivers”: He asks, who are the rivers? And he answers: Except as it is written, “Let the rivers lift up their voice, let the rivers lift up their waves,” which are the sefirot of Yesod of Zeir Ainpin, which is called a river, as it is written, “And a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden,” and therefore it is written, “And He established it upon the rivers.”

1 day ago
Elishá Mizraji edited Sulam on Zohar, Vaera 14:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

~~Thus, “And I~~Así, "Y se appeare~~d to,” etc., i~~ció a... con El Shaddai": ~~which is the name of~~que es el nombre de Malchjut, ~~befor~~antes de que she ~~joined with~~uniera con Zeir Ainpin ~~face to face. And its explanation is, “And I~~Panim ve Panim. Y su explicación es: "Y se appeare~~d to the patriarchs i~~ció a los padres con El Shaddai", which is Malchut, when I was in my house and I was not married, and I did not speak to you face to face as I did with you, and you at the beginning of your speech, you said to my daughter things like that in my presence.” That is why it is written, “And Ique es Maljut, cuando estaba en mi casa y no se había casado, y no hablaron conmigo Panim ve Panim como lo hice contigo, y tú al comienzo de tu discurso, le dijiste a mi hija en mi presencia cosas como estas. Sino que por eso está escrito: "Y se appeare~~d to~~ció a Abraham, ~~to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov i~~a Isaac y a Jacob con El Shaddai, ~~and~~y myi namombre HaShem ~~was not known to them,” meaning to speak to them on this level that I spoke to you~~no les fue conocido", es decir, hablar con ellos en este nivel en que hablé contigo.

1 day ago
Elishá Mizraji edited Sulam on Zohar, Vaera 13:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

~~And I appeared to Abraham, etc., i~~Y se apareció a Abraham... Y se apareció a Abraham, y así sucesivamente, con "El Shaddai~~: It is asked, why did the name change here, from the upper names which are~~". Pregunta: ¿Por qué cambió el nombre aquí, de los nombres de arriba que son ADNI, HaShem, Elokhim, ~~and here it said~~ y aquí dice "El Shaddai"? And it is answered, it is similar to a king who had an unmarried daughter and a friend. When the king wanted to speak to his friend, he would send his daughter to speak to him, and the king would speak to him through his daughter. The time came when his daughter got married. On the day of her wedding, the king said, "Call her METAT honorable." And he said to her, "Until now I have spoken through you to those with whom I have spoken, but from now on, I will tell your husband, and he will tell whomever it may concern." Afterward, her husband spoke controversial words to her before the king, until she began to speak, and the king spoke up, and said to her, "Am I not the king, that to this day no man has spoken to me except through my daughter, and I gave you my daughter, and spoke to you openly, which I have not done with any other manY responde: Es como un rey que tenía una hija soltera, y tenía un amigo. Cuando el rey quería hablar con el amigo, enviaba a su hija a hablar con él, y el rey hablaba con él a través de su hija. Llegó el momento en que su hija se casó. El día de su boda, el rey dijo: llamen “La Matronita querida". Y le dijo: "Hasta ahora he hablado a través de ti con quien he hablado, de ahora en adelante, yo hablaré con tu esposo, y él dirá a quien sea necesario". Pasaron los días, y su esposo le dijo palabras de disputa ante el rey, hasta que ella comenzó a hablar. El rey se hizo cargo de la situación, y le dijo: "¿No soy el rey, que hasta este día nadie ha hablado conmigo excepto a través de mi hija, y yo te di a mi hija, y hablé contigo abiertamente, lo que no hice con nadie más?"¶

1 day ago
Elishá Mizraji edited Sulam on Zohar, Vaera 12:1 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

~~And~~Y dijo Rabbi Yosi said, etc.: And the Ari, Moses, had he not been the master of the house, as it is written about him, “Prayer of Moses, man of Elokim,” would have been punished for what he said to ADNI, “Why have you done wrong to this people?” etc. But because he was the master of the house, he was not punished. Similar to a ma... Y dijo Rabi Yosi: "Moisés, si no hubiera sido el dueño de la casa, como está escrito sobre él: 'Oración de Moisés, el hombre de Dios', habría sido castigado por lo que dijo a ADNI: '¿Por qué has tratado mal a este pueblo?' Pero debido a que era el dueño de la casa, no fue castigado. Es como un who ~~had a dispute with his wife, who was a king’s daughter, and said things to her that were not~~mbre que tuvo una disputa con su esposa, que era hija de un rey, y le dijo cosas que no eran appropriate, she began to get angry, and when she began to speak, the king intervened and she became silent and stopped speaking. The king said to her husband, “Did you not know that I am a king and that you should not have spoken like that before?” Something similar happened with Moses, as it is written, “And Moses approached HaShem and said, ADNI, why have you done wrong?” etc. Immediately, "And Elokim spoke to Moses," which is the measure of judgment, because the king's daughter began to get angry, immediately the king intervened and said, "I am HaShem," did you not know that I am a king and that you should not have spoken like that before?das. Ella comenzó a quejarse, y cuando empezó a hablar, el rey estaba allí, y el rey se hizo cargo de la situación, y ella se calló y dejó de hablar. El rey le dijo a su esposo: '¿No sabías que soy el rey, y ante mí has hablado de esta manera?' De la misma manera, Moisés, que está escrito: 'Y Moisés volvió a HaShem y dijo: ADNI, ¿por qué has tratado mal...?', inmediatamente 'Y Dios habló a Moisés', que es la medida del juicio, porque la hija del rey había comenzado a quejarse, y el rey se hizo cargo de la situación, y le dijo: 'Yo soy HaShem, ¿no sabías que soy el rey, y ante mí has hablado de esta manera?'".

1 day ago
Yaakov Trump published a new Source Sheet, When Mashiach Will Come.
1 day ago
Joseph Ravitsky published a new Source Sheet, Shemini Atzeret, I Will Send Out My People.
1 day, 1 hour ago
Rabbi Ruhi Sophia Rubenstein published a new Source Sheet, VaEra: Power as Destruction.
1 day, 2 hours ago
A S edited Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 121:1 and 5 others »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

One who takes old (ie used) vessels from one who worships idols [lit. stars] - the way in which the idol-worshipper used them, this is how he kashers them. Therefore, one who takes a used old vessel which was used for cold, such as cups and plates and others like that - he washes them and he must scrub them well in water at the time of washing in order to remove and polish the issur (forbidden matter) which is on them, and afterwards rinse them in water and dip them (in a mikvah). ~~GLOSS~~Rema: There are places where the custom is to permit placing wine in vessels (ie barrels) where the planks of wood are smeared with fat because the nature of wine is to separate itself from the fat, and the fat congeals and stands by itself and does not touch the wine at all (Ribash 149).

1 day, 3 hours ago
5 related »
Rabbi Anita Josefa Barzman MD Founder, micro-mishkan.net published a new Source Sheet, Vaera 5786 - Hardened hearts: we are inured to cruelty. The plagues are problematic. Collective punishment, again, in our Torah.
1 day, 5 hours ago
Stephan Claassen added a connection between Pardes Rimmonim 3:3:2 and Sefer Yetzirah 1:9
(automatic citation link)

1 day, 7 hours ago
Stephan Claassen added a connection between Pardes Rimmonim 3:3:2 and Sefer Yetzirah 1:5
(automatic citation link)

1 day, 7 hours ago
Stephan Claassen added a connection between Pardes Rimmonim 3:3:2 and Sefer Yetzirah 1:10
(automatic citation link)

1 day, 7 hours ago
Stephan Claassen added a connection between Pardes Rimmonim 3:3:2 and Zohar, Idra Zuta 44
(automatic citation link)

1 day, 7 hours ago
Stephan Claassen edited Pardes Rimmonim 3:3:2 history »
Version: Sefaria Community Translation (English)

And further he extended considerably concerning this opinion. And at another place he wrote that because of this reason Chochma is in Sefer Yetzirah called ‘Depth of Beginning’ [Sefer Yetzirah 1:5], as it is beginning etc. Such is the opinion of Rabbi Shem Tov, as he wanted to say that Keter is not [counted] in the number of the Sefirot, although he admits on the subject that En Sof is not Keter, as it is proven out of his expression when he says ‘and just as one does not enumerate the ‘Reason of all the reasons’ at all, similarly it is not proper to enumerate upper Keter’, [thus] he [here] admits that the ‘Reason of all reasons’ is not Keter, [as] in truth Keter was emanated from it [= En Sof]. And before we will enter in the demolition of this opinion [that Keter would be En Sof] it is appropriate that we know what brought them into this mistake, and we shall say that they are depending on this [opinion] out of three matters. The first [is] the saying ‘With ten utterances the world was created’ (Mishna, Pirkei Avot 5:1), on which we [already] have extended in the previous Gate in chapter three. And there we attempted on the subject and were forced [to conclude] that from this saying there is no proof at all for its matters. And the second [is] that they saw in Sefer Yetzirah [that] it began to count [in] the ‘mishna of the depths’ from Chochma on in its saying: ‘Depth of Beginning and Depth of the End’ [Sefer Yetzirah 1:5] which are Chochma and Bina, that it is seen that it [= Chochma] is the first for the Emanation, and [that thus] Keter is not in the calculation of the Sefirot. And similarly in its saying ‘One, Spirit of the Living God etc.’ [Sefer Yetzirah 1:9], ‘Second, Spirit [coming] from Spirit’ [Sefer Yetzirah 1:10], they said that as ‘One, spirit of God’ is Chochma and ‘Spirit from Spirit’ is Bina etc., it is seen that from Chochma onwards the number of the ten Sefirot begins. And the third [is] as they found a huge tree [= a big authority] to depend on, and this is the divine Rashbi of blessed memory in the Idra, and this is what it says: ‘The place of the beginning is found [starting] from the Ancient Holy One, who is illuminated from the constellation etc.’ [Zohar, Idra Zuta 44], as we will extend upon [this further later on] with help of HaShem.

1 day, 7 hours ago
QA Automation published a new Source Sheet, Test Sheet 1768483799086.
1 day, 8 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman added a connection between Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Pesakhim 8:8 and Genesis 35:7
(automatic citation link)

1 day, 9 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Pesakhim 8:8 and Exodus 22:14

1 day, 9 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Pesakhim 8:8 history »
Version: En Jacob, translated by SH Glick, 1916 (English)

R. Elazar said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Micha 4, 2) And many nations shall come, and say. Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob. The God of Abraham and Isaac, is not stated here, but that of Jacob; i.e., neither like that of Abraham, who described it as a mountain, as it is said (ExGen. 22, 14) On the mount of the Lord it shall be seen; nor like that of Isaac, who described it as a field, as it is said (Ib. 24, 63) And Isaac was gone out to mediate in the field; but like that of Jacob, who described it as a house, as it is said (Ib. 35, 7) And he called the name of that place Beth-El (the house of God)." R. Jochanan said: "The day on which the reunion of the exiled will occur, will be as great as the day on which heaven and earth were created; for it is said (Hos. 2, 2) Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one head, and they shall go up out of the land; for great shall be the (Yom) day of Yisre-el. Behold, it is written (Gen. 1, 5) And it was morning and it was evening one (Yom) day."

1 day, 9 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman deleted a connection between Job 28:14 and Rashi on Genesis 1:27:1

1 day, 9 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Rashi on Genesis 1:27:1 history »
Version: Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934 (English)

ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו SO GOD CREATED THE MAN IN HIS IMAGE —in the type that was specially made for him, for everything else was created by a creative fiat, whilst he was brought into existence by a creative act (literally, by hand), as it is said (Psalms 139:5) “And Thou hast laid thy hand upon me.” He was made by a seal as a coin that is made by a die that is called in old French coin. It is similarly said, (Job 238:14) “it is changed as clay under the seal” (Sanhedrin 38a).

1 day, 9 hours ago
QA Automation published a new Source Sheet, Test Sheet 1768480359995.
1 day, 9 hours ago
QA Automation published a new Source Sheet, Test Sheet 1768479680742.
1 day, 9 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Mishneh Torah, Repentance 8:2 history »
Version: Torat Emet 363 (Hebrew)

הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵין בּוֹ גּוּף וּגְוִיָּה אֶלָּא נַפְשׁוֹת הַצַּדִּיקִים בִּלְבַד בְּלֹא גּוּף כְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בּוֹ גְּוִיּוֹת אֵין בּוֹ לֹא אֲכִילָה וְלֹא שְׁתִיָּה וְלֹא דָּבָר מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁגּוּפוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם צְרִיכִין לָהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְלֹא יֶאֱרַע דָּבָר בּוֹ מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּאָרְעִין לַגּוּפוֹת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. כְּגוֹן יְשִׁיבָה וַעֲמִידָה וְשֵׁנָה וּמִיתָה וְעֶצֶב וּשְׂחוֹק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים (גמרא ברכות יז א) "הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵין בּוֹ לֹא אֲכִילָה וְלֹא שְׁתִיָּה" וְלֹא תַּשְׁמִישׁ "אֶלָּא צַדִּיקִים יוֹשְׁבִים וְעַטְרוֹתֵיהֶם בְּרָאשֵׁיהֶן וְנֶהֱנִין מִזִּיו הַשְּׁכִינָה". הֲרֵי נִתְבָּרֵר לְךָ שֶׁאֵין שָׁם גּוּף לְפִי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ צַדִּיקִים יוֹשְׁבִין דֶּרֶךְ חִידָה אָמְרוּ. כְּלוֹמַר הַצַּדִּיקִים מְצוּיִין שָׁם בְּלֹא עָמָל וּבְלֹא יְגִיעָה. וְכֵן זֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ עַטְרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּרָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּלוֹמַר דַּעַת שֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁבִּגְלָלָהּ זָכוּ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא מְצוּיָה עִמָּהֶן וְהִיא הָעֲטָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה (שיר השירים ג יא) "בָּעֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטְּרָה לּוֹ אִמּוֹ". וַהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ישעיה לה י) "וְשִׂמְחַת עוֹלָם עַל רֹאשָׁם" וְאֵין הַשִּׂמְחָה גּוּף כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּנוּחַ עַל הָרֹאשׁ. כָּךְ עֲטָרָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּאן הִיא הַיְדִיעָה. וּמַהוּ זֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ נֶהֱנִין מִזִּיו הַשְּׁכִינָה. שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים וּמַשִּׂיגִין מֵאֲמִתַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַה שֶּׁאֵינָם יוֹדְעִים וְהֵם בַּגּוּף הָאָפֵל הַשָּׁפָל:

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 51a:3 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: ולא היא, התם תיהוי [שם תהיה] היא הראיה, במקומה תישאר, ואין ללמוד ממנה, כי במקרה זה משחיטה דחולין קאתיין [הן באות], גם מליקת העוף משחיטת עוף חולין בבנין אב, וגם שחיטת עוף חולין משחיטת בהמת חולין בקל וחומר, ובזה אין הגבלה של למד מלמד.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 50b:5 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ושואלים: דבר הלמד בגזירה שוה מהו שילמד בבנין אב? שאלה זו לא נפתרה, ועל כן תיקו [תעמוד] השאלה במקומה.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 50a:5 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: מהי תיתי [מאלו תבוא]? לא נכתוב רחמנא [תכתוב התורה] צפון בעולה ותיתי [ותבוא, תילמד] הלכה זו מחטאת ואשם — יש לפרוך: מה להנך [לאלה] שכן מכפרין, מה שאין כן העולה שאינה לכפרה אלא למתנה!

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 49b:22 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: ודלמא [ושמא] אין למדים בגזירה שווה זו מחטאת לאשם בגלל סיבה אחרת, משום דאיכא למיפרך [שיש מקום לפרוך] את הגזירה השווה ולומר: מה לחטאת שהיא חמורה שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות!

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 49a:16 and 4 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: אם כן, ששחיטת צפון אינה אלא למצוה בכל האשמות, נכתוב בהאי [שיכתוב שחיטת צפון בזה] באשם מצורע, ולא נכתוב בהאי [יכתוב שחיטת צפון בזה] בדין אשם בכלל, ויילמדו כל האשמות מאשם מצורע. אלא יש כאן יתור המלמד לעכב.

1 day, 11 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 48b:22 and 7 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: לעולם יש לומר כדאמרן מעיקרא [כמו שאמרנו מתחילה]: אותו בצפון ואין שוחט בצפון. ודקשיא לך [ומה שהיה קשה לך]: הרי דבר זה מדברי ר' אחיא לענין עולה נפקא לן [יוצא לנו]! על כך יש להשיב: "אותו" האמור בשעיר לאו למעוטי [לא למעט] שוחט בצפון הוא בא, כפי שדרש ר' אחיא מ"אותו" שבעולה, אלא להוסיף וללמוד ממיעוט זה דבר נוסף: אין שוחט צריך להיות בצפון — אבל מקבל הדם צריך להיות בצפון.

1 day, 11 hours ago
7 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 48a:23 and 11 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ושואלים: אשכחן [מצאנו] דין שחיטה בצפון למצוה, לעכב מנין? ומשיבים: קרא אחרינא כתיב [מקרא אחר כתוב] בשעיר נשיא, שאף הוא חטאת: "ושחט אותו במקום אשר ישחט את העולה" (ויקרא ד, כד), ותניא [ושנויה ברייתא] על כתוב זה: היכן עולה נשחטה? בצפון, אף זה החטאת בצפון.

1 day, 11 hours ago
11 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 47b:3 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: וכי לא שנה שמקבל דמו של אשם מצורע בכלי? והא קתני לה לקמן [והרי שנה את הדבר הזה במשנה לפנינו, בהמשך]: אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע — שחיטתן בצפון, וקבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון!

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 47a:3 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

<big>א</big> שנינו במשנה: שאין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר העובד. ומעירים: מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא [משנתנו היא שלא כשיטת תנא זה], דתניא [ששנויה ברייתא], אמר ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי: שמעתי שהבעלים מפגלין כלומר, שאף הבעלים יכולים לעשות פיגול במחשבתם. אמר רבא: מאי טעמא [מה הטעם] של ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי? שאמר קרא [הכתוב]: "והקריב המקריב קרבנו לה' " (במדבר טו, ד), הרי שבעל הקרבן הוא הקרוי "המקריב".

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 46b:14 and 5 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

"ניחוח" — כלומר, לשם הנחת רוח שיעלו לרצון לקדוש ברוך הוא, "לה' "— שיהא זה לשם מי שאמר והיה העולם.

1 day, 11 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 46a:15 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומעירים: אבל פיגול שאינו שייך בדם לא צריך קרא [מקרא מיותר], דתנן [ששנינו במשנה] לעיל: כל שיש לו מתירין, בין לאדם בין למזבח — חייבין עליו משום פיגול, ודם גופיה [עצמו] מתיר הוא, ואין לו מתיר, ולכן אין בו פיגול.

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 45b:15 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: מסתברא [מסתבר] כי מטומאה הוי ליה למילף [היה לו ללמוד] דין נותר, שכן הוא דומה לה בשלושה עניינים בשונה מפיגול, והם גז"ל סימן כלומר, פסול שהוא בג וף הקרבן, שלא כמו בפיגול שהוא במחשבה. ואין פסולם נקבע כפיגול על ידי ז ריקת הדם.

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 45a:12 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: הניחא למאן דאמר [זה נוח למי שאומר] כי לגבי כלל זה, בתר [אחר] המלמד אזלינן [אנו הולכים] שאם המלמד בהיקש הראשון הוא חולין, למרות שהלמד הוא קדשים — למדים מן הלמד בהיקש לקדשים. אלא למאן דאמר בתר למד אזלינן [לדעת מי שאומר: אחרי הלמד אנו הולכים], ואם הוא בקדשים שוב אין לומדים ממנו בהיקש לקדשים, מאי איכא למימר [מה יש לומר]?

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 44a:19 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

אמר רב יוסף: הא מני [ברייתא זו כשיטת מי היא]? שיטת רבי היא, שהוא סבור כחכמים, שמנחת נסכים אינה ניתרת בדם הזבח. ואין לכן סתירה מלוג השמן, לפי דאמר [שהוא אומר]: לוג שמן של מצורע לא דם האשם מתירו, אלא מתנותיו שזורק מן השמן עצמו "לפני ה' " (ראה ויקרא יד, טז) שרו ליה [הם המתירות אותו] כלומר, את שייריו, באכילה לכהנים. ומדמתנותיו שרו ליה [ומכיון שמתנותיו מתירות אותו], מטעם זה מתנותיו מפגלי ליה [מפגלות אותו], שאם הזה אותן על מנת שיאכלו הכהנים את שייריו למחר — הרי חייבים על אכילתו משום פיגול. ומנין שסבור רבי שמתנותיו של הלוג עצמו הן המתירות אותו?

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 43b:16 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ונברר: ובמאי [במה] מדובר? אי [אם] מדובר בתרומה — אידי ואידי [זה וזה] הוא במיתה, שאין הבדל בהלכה במה נטמאו, אלא כל טמא האוכל תרומה חייב מיתה! ותו [ועוד], כיצד ניתן לפרש מה שנאמר שם: לכך נאמרו חמורות — לומר שאינן במיתה, וכוונת הדברים שהן באיסור לאו (לא תעשה)? הא [הרי] תרומה במיתה היא! (ואי [ואם] לא נאמר הייתי אומר במיתה? דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון!) הרי שלא ניתן לפרש קלות וחמורות באופן זה לגבי תרומה.

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Magen Avot on Avot 1:8:3 history »
Version: Magen Avot, Leipzig 1855 (Hebrew)

וכשיהיו בעלי הדין עומדין לפניך. כן הוא הדין שהדיינין בישיבה ובעלי הדין בעמידה שנאמר ועמדו שני האנשים אשר נלהם הריב לפני ה' כמו שהוא נזכר בפ' שבועת העדות ובסנהדרין פרק כהן גדול ואז יהיו שניהם כאחד בעיניך כרשעים בדינן שלא יטה לבך לאחד מהם שיהיה יותר זכאי מחבירו שמתוך כך לא תראה לו חובה ותזכהו ושמא הוא חייב אלא שניהם יהיו בעיניך כחייבים וחקור אותם אם הם מערימים בטענותיהם:

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 43a:9 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: הא נמי [זו גם כן] אמרה עולא חדא זימנא [פעם אחת], שאמר עולא: לא שנו, שדברים שנפלו מן המזבח אין מעלים אותם, אלא במקרה שלא משלה בהן האור (האש), אבל משלה בהן האור יעלו! ומשיבים: בכל זאת יש חידוש בדבר, מהו דתימא [שתאמר]: הני מילי [דברים אלה אמורים]

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 42b:11 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: חדא [אחת], דהיינו רישא [שזוהי ההלכה הראשונה] בדיוק! ועוד, הא תניא [הרי שנויה ברייתא] אחרת, ששם מפורש: ואחר כך נתן את הלבונה במחשבה! ואומרים: אכן, קשיא [קשה] הדבר לדעת ריש לקיש, הסבור שאין ר' מאיר אומר שמפגלים בחצי מתיר.

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 41b:15 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: אין לדייק מלשון הלכה זו, לפי שלא נאמרה בדווקא, אלא איידי דתנא רישא [מתוך ששנה בתחילה], בחטאת החיצונה, שאם חישב במתנה הראשונה חוץ לזמנו ובמתנה שניה חוץ למקומו הרי זה פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת, תנא נמי סיפא [שנה גם כן בסוף] בחטאת פנימית מקרה דומה, שאם חישב באחרונה מחשבת חוץ למקומו (או שלא לשמו) — פסול ואין בו כרת. ואין לדייק מכאן שאם לא חשב מחשבה כזאת, אלא עשה בשתיקה, שפיגול הוא. על כל פנים, דחינו את ראייתו של ריש לקיש בהבנת דברי ר' מאיר.

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 41a:9 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ויש לשאול: לגבי שגגתם פר העלם דבר מהיכן למדת דין זה? האם לא בהיקשא [בהיקש] מפר כהן משיח? שהרי בפר העלם דבר עצמו לא הוזכרו אימורים אלו. ועל כך יש להקשות: וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש?

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 40b:4 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ועל יתור נוסף באותה פרשה שואלים: מה שנאמר שם "ונתן הכהן מן הדם על מזבח קטרת הסמים אשר לפני ה' " (ויקרא ד, ז) למה לי לכתוב בו "קטורת הסמים"? די במה שנאמר בו "אשר לפני ה' " ללמדנו באיזה מזבח מדובר! לומר שאם לא נתחנך המזבח מתחילה בקטורת הסמים — לא היה מזה עליו.

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 40a:7 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: איצטריך [הוצרך הדבר] להישנות, שכן סלקא דעתך אמינא [יעלה על דעתך לומר]: הני מילי [דברים אלה אמורים רק בעבודה דמעכבא [שמעכבת] את הכפרה כהזאת הדם, אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא [שאינה מעכבת] כפרה, כסמיכה ושיירי הדם, אימא [אמור] שלא, על כן קמשמע לן [משמיע לנו] שגם אותה צריך לעשות בפר יום הכיפורים.

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 39b:5 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: אמרת [אומר אתה]: פוסל אני בשבע הזאות שמעכבות בכל מקום (כאשר יבואר להלן), ומכשיר אני בסמיכה ושירים שאין מעכבות בכל מקום, וסברה היא לומר שלא יעכבו גם כאן.

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 39a:8 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: אבל בשיריים של דמים החיצונים מאי [מה הדין]? פטור אם זרק אותם בחוץ? אדתני [עד שהוא שונה] באותה ברייתא מה דינם של דמים הנשפכין לאמה, ליפלוג וליתני בדידה [שיחלק וישנה בה עצמה] בשיריים כשרים: במה דברים אמורים? בשיריים של דמים הפנימים, אבל בשיריים של דמים החיצונים — פטור!

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 38b:15 and 4 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: וגם לשיטת ר' נחמיה, האם ניתן לדייק כן? אימר דשמעת ליה [אמור ששמעת אותו] את ר' נחמיה אומר דבר זה לענין העלאה בחוץ, מידי דהוי [כמו שהוא הדין] לגבי איברים ופדרים, שאף שאינם מעכבים את הכפרה, מכל מקום אם מעלה אותם בחוץ חייב. אבל לענין כיבוס מי [האם] שמעת ליה [אותו] שמחייב בדם השיריים? ומשיבים: אין [כן], שמענו אותו גם בענין זה.

1 day, 11 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 38a:3 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: שאני התם [שונה שם] שאין מתחשבים במסורת, אלא מניחים שאין מדובר בכתוב אלא על שבועות, משום דכתיב [שנאמר] שם: "כנדתה" כלומר, כימי נידתה, והם שבוע ימים.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 37b:14 and 6 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ושואלים: אלא מעתה לפי דרך זו של דרשת המקראות, מה שנאמר בתפילין של ראש "לטטפת" "לטטפת" "לטוטפות" — הרי כאן ארבע, ומכאן למדים שיש ארבעה בתים בתפילין של ראש, מדוע לא נאמר גם כאן באותה שיטה: אהני קרא ואהני מסורת [הועיל מקרא והועילה המסורת], ואם כן חמשה בתי [בתים] בעי למיעבד [צריך לעשות]!

1 day, 11 hours ago
6 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 37a:9 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: סבר לה [סבור הוא] כדעת ר' יוסי הגלילי שלמד דין זה במעשר ופסח ממה שנאמר בבכור "את דמם תזרוק על המזבח ואת חלבם תקטיר" (במדבר יח, יז).

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 36b:9 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: ולא היא (ואינו כן) אין זו הוכחה, כי התם זריק ומיחזי [שם זורק את הדם והבשר נעשה ראוי לאכילה] למחר, הכא לא מיחזי [כאן אינו ראוי לאכילה על ידי טמאים] כלל, ולכן אין זו מחשבת אכילה.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 36a:15 and 6 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ושואלים: ומי אית ליה [והאם יש לו, מקבל] ר' יהודה האי סברא [סברה זו] של מקום משולש? והתניא [והרי שנויה ברייתא], ר' יהודה אומר: נאמר בכתוב "לא תזבח לה'... כל דבר רע" (דברים יז, א), ריבה כאן חטאת ששחטה בדרום ולא בצפון העזרה, שהוא מקומה, וכן חטאת שנכנס דמה לפנים כלומר, ששחטה על מנת להכניס דמה להיכל, שהיא פסולה. משמע שפוסלת מחשבה גם על מקום שאינו משולש!

1 day, 11 hours ago
6 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 35b:20 and 5 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: והא [והרי] "מהן" קתני [הוא שונה] כלומר, מבשרם ולא מאימוריהן, ואימן דומיא דידהו [בדומה להם], שמעלה את הבשר ולא את האימורים! אלא אימא [אמור] ותקן כך: המעלה מאימוריהן בחוץ — פטור, הא [אבל] אם היה מעלה מאימורי אימן — חייב.

1 day, 11 hours ago
5 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 35a:4 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: והאמר [והרי אמר] ר' אלעזר: מודה ר' יהודה לענין כפרה על המזבח, שדם התמצית אינו מכפר, שנאמר: "כי הדם הוא (הנפש) (בנפש) יכפר" (ויקרא יז, יא), לומר:

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Rashba on Chullin 100a:2 history »
Version: Gerlitz edition, published by Oraita (Hebrew)

חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה ואוסרת כל החתיכות מפני שהן מינה. תימה אם כן היכן מצינן היתר קליפה, שהרי אותה קליפה נעשית נבלה ואוסרת קליפה שבצדה, וכן קליפה לקליפה ואין לדבר סוף. וכתבו רבותינו בעלי התוס' ז"ל דלא אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבלה לאסור מה שבצדה ואף על פי ששניהם חמים, אלא אם כן רוטב מפליטו ומפשיטו על החתיכות, אבל ביבש לא, שאין ההיתר מוליך את האיסור אלא במקום שהאיסור בעצמו יכול לילך ולהתפשט שם, והתם גבי צלי אין האיסור מתפשט מצד אחד של קליפה ואפילו במה שקולפין אין שום איסור מצד הסמוך לבשר, ולפי זה יתיישב מה שהמלח שעל הבשר אינו אוסרו אף על פי שנאסר המלח מחמת הדם שנבלע בו והוא נותן טעם בבשר, לפי שאין המלח מבליע ומוליך הדך במקום שאין הדם מתפשט שם מעצמו, והילכך דאם או שומנו של גיד שאינן מפעפעין שנפלו על חתיכה יבשה רותחת, אף על גב שנפלו ע"ג מקום שומן שהוא מפעפע אין צריך רק קליפה, דאף על פי שהשומן שנפלו עליו מפעפע אין מוליך את האיסור אלא במקום שהוא יכול לילך שם ולהתפשט מעצמו, והא דאמרינן כיון שנותן טעם בחתיכה, פירשו רבותינו בעלי התוס' ז"ל שנותן טעם ממש. וקשיא להו אם כן כי פרכינן למה לי נותן טעם, כלומר למה לי שתאסור חתיכת הנבילה שאר החתיכות על ידי נתינת טעם (חתיכת) [בחתיכות] הכשירה, תאסור היא עצמו את החתיכות שאף הן מינה, ופריק בשקדם וסלקו, כלומר את האיסור, ולפיכך צריכה חתיכת הכשירה שבלעה מהאיסור שתאסור את השאר אכתי נתינת טעם למה דהא מין במינו במשהו לר"י, ועל כן היה רבינו אפרים ז"ל מביא ראיה מכאן דלא אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה בלבד שאר החתיכות בשיעור כולה אלא בבשר בחלב בלבד, ומשום הכי בעינן נתינת טעם כדי שיתפשט אותו נתינת טעם שבחתיכה זו בשאר החתיכות ויאסור אותם במשהו לפי שהן מינה, אבל אם אין שם כדי נתינת טעם אין בו כח לצאת מן החתיכה ולהתפשט דמה שאינו אלא משהו לבד ואין בו שיעור כלל היאך יצא ויתפשט. אבל רבותינובעלי התוס' ז"ל תירצו דאפילו מאן דאית ליה חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה לית ליה שתהא צריכה ששים כמותה כנבילה עצמה, אלא אם כן קבלה תחלה טעם מן האיסור, אבל בכל שהוא היא עצמה אסורה, אבל לאסור אחרים ולהצריך ששים כמותה לא, ופירשו בענין זה הא דאמרינן בשלהי ע"ז (עג, א) כי אתא רבין אמר ר' יוחנן יין נסך שנפל לבור של יין היתר ונפל שם קיתון של מים רואין את ההיתר כאלו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו, ומפר' התם דלרבנן לא בעינן תחלה אלא אפילו נפלו המים לבסוף מבטלין האסור. וקשה אמאי לא אמרינן כיון שנתערב יין נסך בשל היתר הוה ליה של היתר חתיכות נבילה ולא יהו המים מבטלין עד שיבטל המים טעם היין כולו כאלו הכל יין נסך. ופירשו ז"ל דמיירי שלא נפל שם מן היין נסך תחלה כ"כ שיתן טעם בכנגדו במים אף על פי שנאסר יין היתר במשהו אפילו הכי לא החמירו לעשות הכל נבילה להצריך [ס'] בכל היין. והרמב"ן ז"ל לא נראו לו דברי רבותינו הצרפתים ז"ל בזה, שאלו היה עיקר היו מפרשים אותו בגמרא אלא מאן דאית ליה חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבלה אפילו בשלא קבלה טעם קאמר, והכא לאו נותן טעם ממש קאמר, אלא כיון שנתבשלה עמה בקדרה ואסרה קאמר, ומשום דודאי חדא בחדא יש בה בנותן טעם, משום הכי נקט האי לישנא, והאי דיין נסך לרבנן דלא בעינן תחלה טעם אחר יש לו וכבר הארכתי בזה בע"ה שלהי פרק השוכר בס"ד.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 35a:2 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: והלא דם התמצית (שמתמצה מן הצואר, לאחר שיצא דם הנפש) מעורב בו בדם זה של התערובת, ואין זורקים תערובת כזו על המזבח! ומשיבים: ר' יהודה לטעמיה [לשיטתו], שאמר: דם התמצית קרי [קרוי] דם,

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 34b:11 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומעירים: וצריכא [וצריך] שיאמרו כל המקרים הללו, דאי אשמעינן [שאם היה משמיע לנו] רק כשנתן לפסול, הוה אמינא [הייתי אומר]: מאי [מה פירוש] "פסול" כאן? טמא, שאינו דחוי לגמרי, דחזי [שהרי הוא ראוי] לעבודת ציבור, ולכן אין הדם נפסל בכך, אבל אם נתן לשמאל שאינו ראוי בשום אופן לקבלת הדם והולכתו — לא.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 34a:12 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

מותיב [מקשה] ר' ירמיה על דברי ריש לקיש, ממה ששנינו בברייתא לענין אחר: נאמר "כל מפרסת פרסה ושוסעת שסע... בבהמה אתה תאכלו" (ויקרא יא, ג) — ולא בהמה טמאה, ולאו הבא מכלל עשה — עשה הוא!

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 33b:6 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: לדעת ריש לקיש נלמדים שני הדברים מפסוק זה, טמא שנגע בקודש נלמד מדאפקה רחמנא [ממה שהוציאה התורה את הדבר] בלשון נגיעה, ואילו אזהרה לאוכל נלמדה מדאיתקש [ממה שהוקשה] אכילת קודש בטומאה כניסה למקדש ("בכל קודש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבוא").

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 33a:7 and 3 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ושואלים: תנא זה, מאי קסבר [מה הוא סבור]? אי קסבר [אם הוא סבור] שסמיכת אשם מצורע דאורייתא [מן התורה היא מחוייבת], ותכף לסמיכה שחיטה גם כן דאורייתא [מן התורה] — ליעול ולסמוך להדיא [שיכנס ויסמוך במישרין בפנים], דרחמנא אמר [שהתורה אמרה במפורש] שכך יעשה!

1 day, 11 hours ago
3 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 32b:12 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: ואכתי לא דמי [ועדיין אינו דומה] לדברי עולא, שכן מצורע היתירא [היתר] הוא, הואיל ואישתרי אישתרי [הואיל והותר הותר], אבל טומאה בהקרבת הפסח הלוא רק דחויה היא ולא היתר גמור, ולכן אפשר לומר: להא אידחאי, להא לא אידחאי [לזה, לענין טומאת מת נדחתה, לזה, לענין טומאת זב לא נדחתה]!

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Rashba on Chullin 100b:1 history »
Version: Gerlitz edition, published by Oraita (Hebrew)

הא ד~~~~אמר רבא אפילו תימא שלא קדם וסלקן הוי מין ומינו ודבר אחר. כלומר ברוטב שבקדרה שהוא שאינו מינו יש ס' בחתיכת הנבילה עצמה, ואם לא נתנה טעם בחתיכת ההיתר תחלה לא יצטרך ברוטב אלא ששים בחתיכת הנבילה עצמה והכל מותר, אבל כשנתנה טעם בכשירה נעשית הכשירה חתיכת נבילה וצריך ששים ברוטב לבטל את שתיהן. וזה קשה לכאורה לדברי רבינו אפרשים ז"ל שכתב דלא אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה אלא בבשר בחלב, ולדידיה מה לי נ"ט מה לי לא נתן טעם עצמה, שהרי לעולם אין משערין אלא בשיעור גופו של איסור לבד ואין צריך ששים אלא לבטל האיסור הראשון, ותירץ ר"י ז"ל ליישב דברי רבינו אפרים ז"ל דהכא מיירי כשנתנה הנבילה טעם בכשירה ונתמעט נפח הנבילה מחמת בלע שבלעה כשירה, משערין אף במה שבלעה הכשירה מן הנבילה ולא בשיעור הנבילה ממש שנתמעטה, ודוקא כשקבלה הכשירה ממנה, אבל אם לא קבלה הכשירה מן הנבילה (ולא בשיעור הנבילה ממש שנתמעטה ודוקא כשקבלה טעם הכשירה ממנה אבל אם לא קבלה הכשירה טעם) אין משערין אלא בשיעור הנבילה כמות שהיא עכשיו שנתמעטה, משום דאותו בלע כיון שאין בו כדי ליתן טעם הוא כאילו אינו בעולם לגבי אינו מינו, ועוד קמ"ל דאף על גב דיש נותן טעם באותו בלע שבלעה החתיכה של היתר אין צריך ס' ברוטב רק לבטל החתיכה של נבילה שבחתיכת ההיתר ולא לבטל חתיכת ההיתר עצמה. אבל רבינו ז"ל תירץ בענין אחר וז"ל מה שאמר רבא סלק את מינו כמי שאינו, היינו נמי אם קודם שנתנה טעם נבילה בחתיכה יש לבטל ברוטב הנבילה [אבל אחר שנתנה טעם] אין לומר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו שהרי נבלע במינו, וא"א לבטל ברוטב שאינו מינו הואיל ומעורב במינו ומינו אינו יכול לבטל, הלכך צריך שיעור רוטב לבטל כל החתיכה, (דאלו) [ולאו] משום טעם שהחתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה וה[ה]יתר שבה אלא בשביל טעם הנבילה הוא שאי אפשר לבטלו במינו, ואין לומר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו הואיל ומעורב בו, אבל אם היה דם או חלב שנפל בחתיכה הואיל וטעם חתיכה עצמה אינו אסור כי אם טעם דם וחלב שבה, וגם אינו מינה ואפשר לבטל טעם האיסור אם בחתיכה עצמה היה בה שיעור, הלכך אם בראשונה לא היה בחתיכה לבטל טעם האיסור באחרונה יצטרפו עמה החתיכות ויבטלו את האיסור, ולא אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה ע"כ.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 32b:1 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

סמיכה נמי כתיב [גם כן נאמר בה]: "לפני ה' "! ומשיבים: מכך אי אפשר היה ללמוד שהיא בטהורים דווקא, שהרי אפשר דמעייל ידיה וסמיך [שמכניס ידו וסומך]. ואומרים: והרי שחיטה נמי [גם כן] אפשר דעביד [שעושה] סכין ארוכה ושחיט [ושוחט]!

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 32a:12 and 4 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

רב חסדא מתני איפכא [היה שונה להיפך]: "וסמך... ושחט", מה שחיטה בטהורין, אף סמיכה בטהורין. ושואלים: מאי שנא [במה שונה] שחיטה שממנה למדים? דכתיב [שנאמר בה]: "לפני ה' ", ואין טמא נכנס לעזרה,

1 day, 11 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 31b:12 and 4 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: גם אם נדייק מתחילת המשנה, שלאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול מצטרפים, עדיין לאכול ולהקטיר איצטריך [הוצרך לומר], שכן סלקא דעתך אמינא [יעלה על דעתך לומר]: התם [שם] שחושב לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול הוא שאינו מצטרף, משום דלאו כי אורחיה קא מחשב [שעל אכילה שלא כדרכו הוא מחשב], אבל הכא [כאן] לאכול ולהקטיר, דבהאי כי אורחיה ובהאי כי אורחיה [שבזה מחשב כדרכו ובזה כדרכו] אימא ליצטרף [אמור שיצטרף], קא משמע לן [משמיע לנו] שאכילה והקטרה אינם מצטרפים.

1 day, 11 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 31a:14 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: אי דאפקה [אם שהוציא] את הדברים בלשון אכילה — הכי נמי [כך גם כן היה הדין] שהיו מצטרפים אכילה והקטרה. אבל הכא במאי עסקינן [כאן במשנה במה אנו עוסקים] — דאפקה [שהוציאה] בלשון הקטרה, שאז לשון אכילה לחוד ולשון הקטרה לחוד.

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 30b:17 and 4 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: אם כן היתה התשובה, ש"כזית למחר בחוץ" כלל הוא, היה מקבל ממילא את התשובה לשאלתו השניה גם כן, שכן אז מרתח רתח [היה כועס עליו] רבי, על שלא שאל כהוגן, וכך היה אומר לו:

1 day, 11 hours ago
4 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 30a:10 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: התם נמי [שם גם כן] הואיל ולא נאמרו הדברים במפורש, יש לומר שאינם חולקים במחשב כן בקמיצה, אלא בהקטרה של שני מתירי המנחה, הקומץ והלבונה, ובאופן שהקטיר קומץ מנחה במחשבת חוץ לזמנו, קומץ לבונה במחשבת חוץ למקומו.

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 29b:17 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ואומרים: בשלמא [נניח] לשיטת אילפא מדרישא [מכיון שראשה של המשנה] מדבר בשתי עבודות שונות, כפי ששנינו: שחט בשתיקה, קיבל וכו' חוץ לזמנו — סיפא נמי [סופה גם כן] בשתי עבודות. אלא לדעת ר' יוחנן, רישא [ראשה] בשתי עבודות וסיפא [וסופה] בעבודה אחת?

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 29a:6 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומקשים: תיפוק [תצא] לי הלכה זו מקרא קמא [מן המקרא הראשון] "אם האכל יאכל" בפרשת צו, מדאפקיה רחמנא [מפני שהוציא אותו הכתוב] בלשון "שלישי" (ויקרא ז, יח) שהרי לשיטת רבא משם נלמד גם דין חוץ למקומו!

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 28b:9 and 2 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ודוחים: אדרבה [גדולה מזו, להיפך], את המקרא אריכא [הארוך] נפרש שמדבר בחוץ למקומו, ו"שלישי" שב"קדשים תהיו" נפרש שמדבר בחוץ לזמנו, שהרי, כאמור, נותר ומחשב חוץ לזמנו יש בהם דמיון רב (מקד"ש כמבואר לעיל), ומשום דדמי ליה [שדומה לו] סמכיה וקא ממעט ליה [סמך אותו הכתוב אליו וממעט אותו] במלה "ואוכליו", לומר שאין בו עונש כרת! ואם כן, לא מצאנו ראיה גמורה לדרשה.

1 day, 11 hours ago
2 related »
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 28a:8 history »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומעירים: כולהו [כולם], רב הונא ורב חסדא, כדעת שמואל לא אמרי [אינם אומרים], כי להעמיד משנה באופן שרישא [תחילתה] כדעת ר' אליעזר וסיפא רבנן [וסופה כדעת חכמים] לא מוקמי [אין הם מעמידים]. וכן שמואל ורב חסדא כרב הונא לא אמרי [אין אומרים], כי עור אליה כאליה דמי [נחשב] קא משמע להו [נשמע להם].

1 day, 11 hours ago
Shmuel Weissman edited Steinsaltz on Zevachim 27b:13 and 5 others »
Version: William Davidson Edition - Hebrew (Hebrew)

ומשיבים: תריץ הכי [ישב את הברייתא כך]: קטרת זרה שעלתה למזבח החיצון תרד, שאין מזבח החיצון מקדש פסולין אלא בדבר הראוי לו, והפנימי מקדש כל דבר, בין ראוי לו בין שאין ראוי לו. ומסבירים: מאי טעמא [מה טעם הדבר]? האי [זה] המזבח החיצון דינו כדין רצפה, שהרי הוא בנוי כחלק מבנין בית המקדש, והאי [וזה] המזבח הפנימי, הוא כלי שרת וקדושתו מרובה יותר.

1 day, 11 hours ago
5 related »

Older Activity »