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: Sumchus cites Eruvin 13b. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota . The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota , it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case,…
Summary: Sumchus cites Kiddushin 52b. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
The Gemara questions this analysis: But doesn’t the mishna deal with a case where the stolen item is hers, and yet Rav says she is not betrothed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, in the baraita , is referring to a situation where he had arranged to betroth her beforehand, which indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it, but that case, in the mishna, is referring to a situation where he had not arranged his marriage with her, so it is stolen property and she is not betrothed. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was washing her feet in a vessel of water. A certain man came along, grabbed a few dinars from another person, and threw them to her, and said to her: You are betrothed to me. That man subsequently came before Rava, to inquire as to the status of the woman. Rava said: There is not anyone who is concerned for this opinion…
Summary: Sumchus cites Berakhot 13b. Read the exact wording below with its English translation, then open the passage in our own reader.
English translation
“Which I command you this day, will be upon your heart.” Surely the word these, does not come to limit the mitzva of intent. On the contrary, from here you derive that the entire portion requires intent. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva; the entire portion requires intent. Some teach this halakha stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to that which was taught in a Tosefta , where there is a tannaitic dispute. The first tanna holds: One who recites Shema must focus his heart for the entire Shema . Rabbi Aḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Once he focused his heart for the first paragraph alone, he no longer requires intent. With regard to this Tosefta , Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Aḥa who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda. While this differs from the prev…
