parshablog

Lech Lecha: Shadal moves the etnachta in Bereishit 13:10

2026-10-22T08:35:12.579-04:00

(Authored by Claude under my guidance.)

In parashat Lech Lecha, when Avram and Lot part ways, Lot looks out over the plain of the Jordan:

י וַיִּשָּׂא־ל֣וֹט אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־כׇּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה לִפְנֵ֣י ׀ שַׁחֵ֣ת יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶת־סְדֹם֙ וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָ֔ה כְּגַן־יְהֹוָה֙ כְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּאֲכָ֖ה צֹֽעַר׃

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar.

The etnachta, which divides the pasuk into its two halves, is on מַשְׁקֶ֑ה. Everything after it is a string of descriptions, and each is set off by a zakef: "before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah" | "like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt" | "as you come to Zoar".

Shadal (also on Sefaria, though without the accents in the final quotation) explains why the accentuator did this, and then suggests a different division:

לפני שחת ה׳ את סדום ואת עמורה – הם דברי משה בכתבו, (לתוספת ביאור ולא ספור מה שראה לוט), וכן כגן ה׳ כארץ מצרים גם הם דברי משה, גם באכה צער הם דברי משה, כי בימיו לא נשאר מן הככר ההוא אלא צער; ולהיות שלשת המאמרים האלה כלם כעין מאמרים מוסגרים, יפה הפרידם בעל הטעמים; גם אפשר שיהיה שיעור הכתוב כן – וירא את כל ככר הירדן באכה צער כי כלה משקה (לפני שחת ה׳ את סדום ואת עמורה) כגן ה׳, כארץ מצרים, ולפי זה היה האתנח ראוי תחת מצרים כזה
וישא־לוט֨ את־עינ֔יו וירא֘ את־כל־ככ֣ר הירדן֒ כ֧י כל֣ה משק֗ה לפנ֞י שח֤ת ה֙׳ את־סד֣ום ואת־עמור֔ה כגן־ה֖׳ כא֣רץ מצר֑ים באכ֖ה צער:

"Before Hashem destroyed Sodom and Amorah -- these are the words of Moshe as he wrote [it] (as an added explanation, and not a narration of what Lot saw). And so too, like the garden of Hashem, like the land of Egypt are also the words of Moshe. Also as you come to Tzoar are the words of Moshe, for in his day nothing remained of that plain except Tzoar. And since these three statements are all like parenthetical statements, the baal hate'amim [the accentuator] did well to separate them.

It is also possible that the structure of the verse is as follows: 'and he saw all the plain of the Jordan, as you come to Tzoar, that it was all watered (before Hashem destroyed Sodom and Amorah), like the garden of Hashem, like the land of Egypt.' And according to this, the etnachta would belong under מצרים, like this: [and he then writes out the pasuk with his own accents]."

Two things are worth noticing.

First, Shadal reads the accents as a commentary. The baal hate'amim made an interpretive decision, that these three phrases are parenthetical, and Shadal can both explain it ("did well to separate them") and propose an alternative. This is the same Shadal who, a few chapters later, reads וְעָרֵל זָכָר against the accents (נגד הטעמים).

Second, the alternative is not only about the meaning. Shadal does not just say where the etnachta should go. He writes out the entire pasuk with a full, consistent set of accents. Moving one major pause forces a series of other changes down the line, and he makes them.

Seeing the two readings as trees

The ta'amei hamikra form a hierarchy. Each disjunctive accent ends a phrase, and the stronger accents divide the verse into large pieces, which the weaker accents then divide further. That hierarchy can be drawn as a tree. I recently built a trup editor on Girsology for exactly this sort of question. You load a pasuk, drag cantillation marks onto words (or remove a maqaf or paseq), and a parser for the accent grammar redraws the tree.

Here is the Masoretic accentuation of our pasuk. (Read the tree from left to right: the root is the whole pasuk, and the leaves on the right are the words, top to bottom in the order of the pasuk. The red numbers are explained beneath each tree.)

The first half, under the etnachta, is "and Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that it was all watered." The second half, under the silluq, splits into the three zakef phrases that Shadal calls parenthetical. That is, the accentuator put Moshe's three added descriptions together in the second half, and set each one off.

And here is Shadal's accentuation, exactly as he printed it, entered into the same editor:

Now the first half runs all the way through כְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֑יִם, and the second half is nothing but בֹּאֲכָ֖ה צֹֽעַר. Within the first half, Shadal puts a segolta on הַיַּרְדֵּן֒, closing off "and he saw all the plain of the Jordan" as a unit. Then "that it was all watered (before Hashem destroyed Sodom and Amorah)" becomes a single zakef phrase, and "like the garden of Hashem, like the land of Egypt" closes the first half at the etnachta. So the phrase that ends the verse alone, "as you come to Tzoar", is free to point back to "the plain of the Jordan", which is how Shadal paraphrases it.

Notice also that Shadal drops the paseq after לִפְנֵ֣י (the Masoretic text has munach legarmeih there) and gives it a gershayim instead.

The parser accepts Shadal's accentuation as a valid one. That does not prove that his reading is correct, of course. But it does show that his proposal is not just a loose suggestion about where a pause "should" go. It is a complete, grammatical alternative accentuation, and you can open it in the editor and compare the two trees side by side, or try your own.

Shadal does this kind of thing several more times in this parasha. He weighs the accents against an alternative on 12:8, 12:19 and 13:13, and explains the accents of 17:17. Perhaps those are for another post.

Lech Lecha: Shadal, Petronius, and who would rely on this Roman?

2026-10-20T09:23:30.810-04:00

Crafted under my guidance by Claude.

Towards the end of parashat Lech Lecha, Hashem gives Avraham the mitzvah of milah, and spells out what happens to one who does not keep it:

יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל אֶת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר.

14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

What does venichreta, "shall be cut off", mean? Rashi gives the standard rabbinic understanding:

ונכרתה הנפש. הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי וּמֵת קֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ.

"That soul shall be cut off -- he goes childless, and dies before his time."

That is, karet is a punishment at the hands of Heaven. Not something that the community carries out.

Shadal agrees. But in his commentary on this pasuk (also on Sefaria), he first brings and rejects a competing explanation, from the Christian scholar Clericus (Jean Le Clerc). And the proof that Clericus offers is a Latin poem by Petronius. Here is Shadal:

ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה – עונש בידי שמים, והנכון כדברי רז״ל {מועד קטן כ״ח.} שילך ערירי וימות קודם זמנו. ודעת קלעריקוס שיגורש מבין היהודים, או שיהיה נחשב כנכרי, עד שיצטרך לגלות בין הנכרים, והביא ראיה משיר רומי נמצא בשירי Petronius, זה לשונו:

"That soul shall be cut off from his people -- a punishment at the hands of Heaven, and the correct [understanding] is like the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory {Moed Katan 28a}, that he will go childless and die before his time. And the opinion of Clericus is that he will be expelled from among the Jews, or that he will be regarded as a foreigner, to the point that he will need to go into exile among the foreigners. And he brought a proof from a Roman poem found in the poems of Petronius, and this is its language:"

Shadal then quotes the Latin. I'll give it alongside my own translation. (Shadal's text reads cilli, glossing it as asini, "of the ass", in the second line. The text at the Latin Library, fragment XXXV, reads coeli, "of heaven", instead. I give both.)

Iudaeus licet, et porcinum numen adoret
Et cilli (i. asini) summas advocet auriculas;
Ni tamen et ferro succiderit inguinis oram,
Et nisi nudatum solverit arte caput,
Exemtus populo Grajam migrabit ad urbem,
Et non jejuna Sabbata lege premet.
Una est nobilitas, argumentumque coloris
Ingenui, timidas non habuisse manus.

Though the Jew may worship a pig-god,
and call upon the lofty ears of the ass [or: the highest ears of heaven],
still, unless he has also cut with iron around the border of his groin,
and unless he has with skill loosed the bared head,
cut off from the people, he will migrate to a Greek city,
and will not keep the fasting Sabbaths by the law.
There is one nobility, one proof of free birth:
not to have had timid hands.

One can see why Clericus liked this. Exemptus populo, "taken out from the people", is very close to venichreta... me'ameha. And here it is described as a social consequence. The uncircumcised man is not counted among the Jews, and he has to go live among the Greeks.

But Shadal is not impressed:

אמנם מי יסמוך על הרומיי הזה שהיה מאמין שהיהודים עובדים לחמור, ושאינם אוכלים החזיר משום עבודה ושהם מתענים ביום השבת? והאיש הזה לא ידע שהיהודים נימולים לשמונה ימים, והוא סבור שהם מלים את עצמם בגבורת לב

"However, who would rely on this Roman, who believed that the Jews worship a donkey, and that they do not eat the pig because of [its] worship, and that they fast on the Sabbath day? And this man did not know that Jews are circumcised at eight days, and he thinks that they circumcise themselves with courage of heart."

That last point is the final couplet. The "nobility" is not to have had timid hands, that is, to have been brave enough to perform the cut on oneself.

Shadal counts four errors in the space of eight lines. Each of them, by the way, was a standard bit of ancient lore about the Jews. The pig abstention as reverence for the pig is debated in Plutarch's Table Talk (4.5). That Jews fast on the Sabbath turns up in Suetonius (Augustus 76) and in Tacitus (Histories 5.4). And the donkey is the most famous of them all. Apion claimed that the Jews kept a golden ass's head in the Temple, and Josephus has to refute him (Against Apion 2.80). Tacitus says that they consecrated the image of an animal in their sanctuary, the animal that had led them to water in the desert. For a survey, see the Encyclopaedia Judaica article "Ass Worship".

However, Petronius may not actually be guilty of the donkey. Everything rides on one word in the second line. Shadal's text, presumably as he got it from Clericus, reads cilli, a rare word for an ass, and it even comes with a gloss, i. asini, so that nobody will miss it. But the text in the Latin Library reads coeli, that is caeli, "of heaven". Then the line says that the Jew may "call upon the highest ears of heaven". That is, he prays to the God in heaven, rather than to an image. That is not an error at all! It is about what Juvenal says (Satires 14.97), that the Jews worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of the sky.

Daniel Klein, in his English translation of Shadal, notes this in a footnote, but I think the point should be made a bit more explicit. Read with caeli, the donkey charge disappears. And it was one of the strongest items on Shadal's list, since it is so outlandish. The pig-god, the Sabbath fast and the self-circumcision remain. So Petronius would still be a poor witness, but a less ridiculous one than Shadal's text makes him. (Recall, though, that belief that Jews worshiped donkeys was prevalent.)

There is an irony here. Shadal is checking Petronius against what he knows of Judaism, and finds him wanting. But the Latin he is checking is not something he verified. It came to him through Clericus, together with the reading that makes Petronius look worst. That is the same problem one step back. Shadal was able to check the Roman's report about the Jews, but not the scholar's report about the Roman.

Still, Petronius is an unreliable witness, and Shadal rules him out. But Shadal does not stop there:

ומכל מקום גם דברי המשורר הזה אינם שקר מכל וכל. ואם אינם ענין לממאן למול את עצמו תנם ענין לממאן למול את בניו, כי יתכן שהיה בית דין אומר לו מול את בניך או צא מארץ ישראל, לא שיהיה זה המכוון במילת ונכרתה, אבל היא תקנה הכרחית לשמירת הדת. גם יתכן שנתאמתו באיזה זמן דברי המשורר הזה כמשמעם, כגון שנולד אדם בשעת שמד ולא מלוהו, ואח״כ כשגדל נמנע להמול מפני הכאב, ואז גירשוהו ישראל מקרבם.

"Nevertheless, the words of this poet are also not entirely false. And if they are not relevant to one who refuses to circumcise himself, apply them to one who refuses to circumcise his sons. For it is possible that the beit din would say to him, 'Circumcise your sons, or leave the land of Israel.' Not that this is what is intended by the word venichreta, but rather it was a necessary enactment [takkanah] for the preservation of the religion. It is also possible that at some time the words of this poet were borne out according to their plain meaning. For instance, a person was born at a time of persecution and they did not circumcise him, and afterwards when he grew up he refrained from being circumcised because of the pain, and then Israel expelled him from among them."

And then he returns to the pasuk, and proves from elsewhere in Tanach that karet is death at the hands of Heaven, not expulsion:

ומה שכתוב ואם העלם יעלימו עם הארץ את עיניהם מן האיש ההוא וגו׳ ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא ובמשפחתו והכרתי אותו וגו׳ מקרב עמם (ויקרא כ׳:ד׳ וה׳), וכן מה שכתוב לעיני בני עמם (שם שם י״ז) מורה באצבע כי הכרת מיתה בידי שמים, ולא גירוש; וכן ביחזקאל (י״ד:ח׳) ונתתי פני באיש ההוא והשימותיו לאות ולמשלים והכרתיו מתוך עמי.

"And what is written, 'And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man... then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off... from among their people' (Vayikra 20:4-5), and likewise what is written, 'in the sight of the children of their people' (ibid. 17), points with a finger that karet is death at the hands of Heaven, and not expulsion. And similarly in Yechezkel (14:8), 'and I will set My face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of My people.'"

The point of the Vayikra proof is that there, the people of the land fail to act. If karet were something the community carried out by expelling him, it could hardly happen precisely when the community looks away. Instead, Hashem steps in and does the cutting off Himself.

So it is worth being precise about what Shadal grants. He does not think that ancient Jews worshipped donkeys, of course. And he does not think that expulsion is the peshat of venichreta. What he allows is that the social fact Petronius describes may have really existed at some point, as a rabbinic enactment or as a response to circumstances. That is, the community expelling the uncircumcised, as a matter of practical policy, separate from and alongside the Biblical punishment.

I would add one more possibility to Shadal's two. Who were the people a Roman in Italy would actually see becoming Jews, and taking a blade to themselves as adults? Proselytes. A Gentile drawn to Judaism, who kept some practices but balked at circumcision, would indeed not be counted among the people. Seen from outside, that looks like "unless he cuts, he is excluded from the people". And the "courage of heart" Petronius admires is the courage of the adult convert. If so, Petronius's mistake about the eighth day is a mistake of perspective. He described the Jews he could see, and generalized.

It's been a while...

2022-12-06T09:48:00.002-05:00

I've been blogging a bit on Substack, at Scribal Error. While focused more on gemara and girsaot, I just had a post on Rationalism and Midrash. Check out Luminous Stones and Peshat in Midrash.

An excerpt:

Is this magic? Miracle? The natural process by which luminous stones glow? It seems a natural process. Bereishit Rabba continues:
אָמַר רַבִּי הוּנָא עֲרִיקִין הֲוֵינָן מִן קוֹמֵי גוּנְדָא בַּהֲדָא בּוּטִיטָה דִּטְבֶרְיָה וְהָיָה בְּיָדֵינוּ נֵרוֹת, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ כֵּהִים הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהוּא יוֹם, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ מַבְהִיקִים הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהוּא לָיְלָה.
Rabbi Huna relates how, when they were hiding from a troop in the ruins of Teveriah, they had lamps. When they grew dim they knew it was day, while when they grew bright, they knew it was night.
Thus, I’d guess that Rabbi Levi, the author of this midrash, viewed it as natural rather than supernatural.

Minchat Shai, Bereishit 1:2

2022-10-20T10:04:00.003-04:00

Here is Bereishit 1:2:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

Minchat Shai writes:

ורוח אלהים. כתב בעל הטורים שנים דסמיכי הכא ואידך ורוח לבשה את עמשי (ד"ה א' י"ב) קרי ביה הכא נמי ורוח אלהים לבשה וגו'. ותימא גדולה על דבריו. כי אין דרך המסורת למסור סימן במה שלא נמצא בכתוב ולומר קרי ביה. ובלי ספק שנוסחא משובשת נזדמנה לפניו והנוסחא האמיתית היא ורוח אלהים לבשה את זכריה (ד"ה ב' כ"ד). וכן כתב מוהר"ר מאיר אנגיל במסורת הברית הגדול. ומה שנמסר בפ' ויקהל רוח אלהים ה' בלישנא. היינו כל הכתובים רוח אלהים בין בוא"ו בין בלא וא"ו כמו שמונה והולך שם:

To analyze this piece by piece.

ורוח אלהים. כתב בעל הטורים שנים דסמיכי הכא ואידך ורוח לבשה את עמשי (ד"ה א' י"ב) קרי ביה הכא נמי ורוח אלהים לבשה וגו'.

On the phrase וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים, the Baal HaTurim writes in our digital edition:

"וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים" – ב' דסמיכי. הכא, ואידך: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה אֶת זְכַרְיָה" (דברי הימים ב כד כ). קרי ביה הכא נמי: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה". פירוש, שעל ידי לבושו אמר "וַיְהִי אוֹר", דכתיב בתריה: "וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר". וזה הוא שדרשו רז"ל (ב"ר פרשה ג): ממעטה לבושו נבראת האורה.

And the spirit of God: [This phrase appears] two [times] as a relational [or possessive phrase]. Here, and the other one is (II Chronicles 24:20) "and the spirit of God clothed Zecharya." One could here too read [as if it was written], "and the spirit of God clothed;" the explanation [of which] is that because of His clothing, He said, "let there be light," after which is written, "and there was light." This is what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 3:4), "from a little of his clothing, He created light."

But Minchat Shai has a different version of Minchat Shai, which he will propose to emend. Minchat Shai summarizes Baal HaTurim that, like a masoretic note, that there are two in construct form (the Spirit of God), namely here and I Divrei Hayamim 12:19, וְר֣וּחַ לָֽבְשָׁ֗ה אֶת־עֲמָשַׂי֮, "Then the spirit clothed Amasai". To explain, we should read it here as if it were "then the spirit of God clothed", etc.

ותימא גדולה על דבריו. כי אין דרך המסורת למסור סימן במה שלא נמצא בכתוב ולומר קרי ביה.

And Baal HaTurim's words are astonishing, because it isn't the way of the Masoret to record a mnemonic about what is not found in the Scriptures and to say, "read it as if it said this".

ובלי ספק שנוסחא משובשת נזדמנה לפניו והנוסחא האמיתית היא ורוח אלהים לבשה את זכריה (ד"ה ב' כ"ד).

And doubtless, a mistaken nusach came before the Baal HaTurim, while the true nusach would be to point to II Divrei Hayamim 24:20, which does have וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה.

(The digital text of Baal HaTurim, which corrected the pointed-to text, makes no sense, for why would we read a text which actually has veruach Elokim as if it said veruach Elokim?)

וכן כתב מוהר"ר מאיר אנגיל במסורת הברית הגדול.

So did Rabbi Meir Engel write in Masoret HaBrit HaGadol:

ומה שנמסר בפ' ויקהל רוח אלהים ה' בלישנא. היינו כל הכתובים רוח אלהים בין בוא"ו בין בלא וא"ו כמו שמונה והולך שם:

Meanwhile, regarding the masoretic note in parashat Vayakhel which reads רוח אלהים, there are five with this language, these are all the verses with רוח אלהים, whether with or without a vav, as he will enumerate and detail there.

Minchat Shai, Bereishit 1:1

2022-10-19T13:02:00.002-04:00

Here is Bereishit 1:1:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Minchat Shai comments:

בְּרֵאשִׁית דגש הבי"ת עם טפחא תחת השי"ן. ב' רבתי. ובראש השיטה ובראש הדף וזו היא בי"ת של בי"ה שמ"ו. עיין ברבינו בחיי פ' בשלח וריקנאטי ריש פ' בראשית ובפי' שערי אורה למהר"ר מתתיה דלאקרט ז"ל במדה ראשונה על מלת ואת:

To analyze this, piece by piece.

דגש הבי"ת עם טפחא תחת השי"ן

The bet gets a dagesh. This is obvious and unsurprising, as a straightforward application of the rule that beged kefet at the start of a word will take a dagesh kal, indicating that it is the plosive rather than fricative. So, it is a bet rather than bhet.

עם טפחא תחת השי"ן.

Is this obvious, or are there contrary texts? I'll point to William Wickes (in A Treatise on the accentuation of the twenty-one so-called Prose books of the Old Testament), page 32, who asserts that the rules of trup, if only looking to the logical (followed by syntactic division) would have been other than what we have, but the etnachta is placed on Elokim for emphasis. Otherwise, presumably, the logical division would be on Bereishit.

Once the etnachta is on Elokim, the syntactic division would separate of the PP (prepositional phrase) from the VP (verb phrase), and one or two words away from the etnachta, we can have a tipcha as the disjunctive accent. This all follows from a modern analysis of trup, which isn't necessarily what would motivate Minchat Shai. More likely, it is simply that this is the very first word of Tanach, so gets focus.

ב' רבתי. ובראש השיטה ובראש הדף וזו היא בי"ת של בי"ה שמ"ו

An enlarged bet. And this is at the start of a line, at the start of a column. And this is the bet of the mnemonic of בי"ה שמ"ו, (a quote of Tehillim 68:5) which are letters that start columns. These are:

YUD - Bereshit 49:8

HEH - Shemot 14:28

SHIN - dispute. See Minchat Shai to Vayikra 18:8

MEM - dispute. See Minchat Shai to Bemidbar 24:5

VAV - Devarim 31:28.

עיין ברבינו בחיי פ' בשלח

This is to explain the masoretic note. Rabbenu Bachya on Shemot 14:28 begins:

הבאים אחריהם בים. משפט ס"ת להיות ששה בריש דפין והסימן הוא בי"ה שמ"ו. ואלו הם, ב'ראשית, י'הודה אתה יודוך, ה'באים אחריהם, ש'מור ושמעת, מ'צא שפתיך, ו'אעידה בם,

and Rabbenu Bachya proceeds to offer a reason. The SHIN would be Devarim 12:28, the MEM would be Devarim 23:24, and the YUD would be Devarim 31:28.

וריקנאטי ריש פ' בראשית

Recanati at the start of Bereshit discusses, from a kabbalistic perspective, why the Torah begins with the letter bet.

ובפי' שערי אורה למהר"ר מתתיה דלאקרט ז"ל במדה ראשונה על מלת ואת

And in Shaarei Ora, from Rabbi Matitya Delecrut (with R' Yosef Gikatillia), in the midda rishona, on the word ve'et. (Another kabbalistic work. unsure what it says there.)

Review Questions for Learning Sukkah 2a.1

2021-10-22T14:17:00.004-04:00

Background

1) Who is the typical author of a stam Mishnah? Tosefta? Sifra? Sifrei?

2) Why put the position as setam instead of spelling it out?

3) Which side of the page is Rashi?

4) What are the three types of links on the gemara's page? Names of these commentary links.

5) What are two extremely important skills / characteristics for learning gemara?

Mishnah

1) What is Rashi's explanation for why Rabbi Yehuda and the Tanna Kamma disagree about >20 amot?

2) What is Rashi's explanation for why < 10 is invalid?

3) What is Rashi's explanation for why more sun than shade is a problem?

4) Why is shlosha put in parentheses?

Gemara - first sugya

1) What is a "mavuy" that has a height?

2) Why not say pasul, in your own words? Two explanations.

Some hints:

אמר רבי יוחנן: "סתם משנה רבי מאיר סתם תוספתא רבי נחמיה, סתם ספרא רבי יהודה, סתם ספרי רבי שמעון וכולהו אליבא דרבי עקיבא".

plurality because pasken. came out of his beit midrash with rabbi yehuda hanasi redacting

inside margin

back in time, contemporary, forward to halacha

sitzfleish and keeping finger on place

wait and see

bitul

gender

crossbeam needs to be seen, before moving from alleyway to real road