Every source recorded in his entry, with the quoted wording where it is preserved, and a backlink to that very passage in our own reader — so you can check each reference at its source.
Summary: Rav Acha Sava cites Kiddushin 65b. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that certainly in the case of a woman divorced from betrothal, that we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect…
Summary: Rav Acha Sava cites Zevachim 91a. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
And even though the additional offerings are of greater sanctity, as they are sacrificed due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the frequent offering precedes the offering of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional offerings but does not affect the daily offerings brought on Shabbat? Rather, the sanctity of Shabbat elevates the sanctity of the daily offerings as well, and as both are of equal sanctity, the frequent daily offering precedes the additional offerings. The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings because they are more frequent, despite the fact that the New Moon elevates the sanctity of its additional offerings. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Is that to say that the…
Summary: Rav Acha Sava cites Pesachim 74a. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
MISHNA: How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [ shappud ] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside it and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head outside it. One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spit nor on a metal grill [ askela ]. However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill. GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a metal spit. The Ge…
Summary: Rav Acha Sava cites Deuteronomy יט:טו. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
A single witness may not validate against another party any guilt or blame for any offense that may be committed; a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more.
THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition · CC-BY-NC
