Rishonim and Acharonim commentary on the Talmud
Rishonim and Acharonim commentary on the Talmud
This domain tests use of the medieval and early-modern commentary layer: what each commentator is asking, which source he cites, and whether he agrees with the preceding comment.
Who is who
- Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040–1105): running commentary on Gemara; explains words, realia, and the local plain sense.
- Tosafot (12th–13th c. France/Germany): dialectical comments; often ask from a parallel sugya, then distinguish cases.
- Rambam (Mishneh Torah): systematic code; his rulings can differ from the local sugya’s plain reading.
- Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Rosh: novellae (chiddushim) that analyze the sugya and often critique Rashi or Tosafot.
- Acharonim: Shulchan Aruch and Rema; Shach and Taz on Yoreh Deah; Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah on Orach Chaim.
Worked example
Tosafot comments קשיא... and cites a baraita that seems to contradict Rashi’s explanation. The move is: (1) identify Rashi’s claim; (2) identify the baraita’s claim; (3) state the contradiction; (4) read Tosafot’s ויש לומר as his answer; (5) note whether he distinguishes the cases (שאני) or reinterprets the baraita. Reasoning: a Tosafot is an argument, not a summary. Its value lies in the question and the distinction.
Traps
- Quoting “Rashi says” without the daf and the exact phrase.
- Treating Tosafot as one author; it is a school and collection.
- Reading an Acharon’s ruling as peshat in the Gemara.
- Forgetting that Rema is a gloss on Shulchan Aruch for Ashkenazim.
- Confusing Mishneh Torah with the Mishnah.