Previous daf

1)

(a) It is permitted to save Nevi'im and Kesuvim from a fire on Shabbos.

(b) One may take them to a Mavuy - a cul-de-sac which opens at one end into a Reshus ha'Rabim. The Isur would appear to be the fact that there is no Eiruv - as will be explained later (It is not clear why Rashi calls it an Isur Tircha - excessive bother).

(c) It is forbidden to learn Kesuvim on Shabbos, to ensure that everyone attends the Derashah (at which they would teach practical Halachos) on Shabbos morning.

(d) According to ...

1. ... Rashi's Rebbes - 'Af Al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon, Te'unin Genizah' - refers to Kesuvim, but not to Nevi'im, since, if Yonasan ben Uziel wrote an explanation to Nevi'im, it can hardly be forbidden.
2. ... Rashi, it refers even to Nevi'im, because, in his opinion, Yonasan *said* the Targum *orally*, but who permitted it to be *written*?

(a) Both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda agree that, according to those Tana'im who *allow* all Kisvei Kodesh to be read in any language, one may save translations from a fire on Shabbos. (Their argument is confined to those opinions which *forbid* them to be read.)

(b) Everyone agrees that one may read (ancient) Greek translations of Kisvei Kodesh.

(c) Even though it is forbidden to read translations, argues Rav Chisda, saving them is permitted, because it is degrading for Kisvei Kodesh to be left to burn.

(a) 'Kol Kisvei Kodesh Matzilin Mipnei ha'Deleikah, Bein she'Korin Bahen, u'Vein she'Ein Korin Bahen, ve'Af Al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon'. The Gemara initially understood that the Tana must hold 'Lo Nitnu Likros'. Why? Because otherwise, why does he add the words 've'Af Al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon' (if not to teach us just that)? Yet he rules Matzilin min ha'Deleikah' - seemingly not like Rav Huna?

(b) If the whole Mishnah refers to 'Matzilin', argues Rav Huna, why does the Tana need to conclude 'Te'unin Genizah'? Is it not obvious that anything that may be saved from a fire on Shabbos, requires Genizah?

(c) Rav Huna therefore, amends the Mishnah to read: '... Bein she'Korin Bahen, u'Vein she'Ein Korin Bahen. Bameh Devarim Amurim, she'Kesuvin bi'Leshon ha'Kodesh, Aval be'Chol Lashon, Ein Matzilin; va'Afilu Hachi, Genizah Ba'u'. This text conforms perfectly with his opinion.

(d) Rav Chisda, on the other hand, reads the Mishnah like this: ... 'Bein she'Korin Bahen, u'Vein she'Ein Korin Bahen, Af Al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon Nami Matzilin. u'Mekek Shelahen, Te'unin Genizah'.

(a) According to Rav Huna, the Tana of the Beraisa, which writes 'Hayu Kesuvin Targum ... Matzilin Osan Mipnei ha'Deleikah', holds 'Nitnu Likros' - and we have already ascertained that, according to that Tana, even Rav Huna agrees that Matzilin.

(b) Rav Huna concedes that there is a Machlokes Tana'im, and that the Tana of the Beraisa (referred to later as the Tana of Giftis) 'Hayu Kesuvin Targum ... Af Al pi she'Lo Nitnu Likros Bahen, Matzilin Osan Mipnei ha'Deleikah' - holds Matzilin (like Rav Chisda).

(a) Aba Chalafta was Rebbi Yossi's father (which is why Rebbi Yossi referred to him by that name. He recalled how Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken had stood on the steps of the Har ha'Bayis, and instructed a builder to bury a translation of Sefer Iyov underneath a row of stones of the building.

(b) Rebbi protested that Raban Gamliel could not possibly have poured a bowl of mud over the translations, for two reasons: firstly, where would they find a bowl of mud on the Har ha'Bayis? Secondly, it is one thing to *bury* holy Kesavim, allowing them to fade automatically, but quite another, to positively *destroy* them, which is clearly forbidden!

(c) According to Rebbi, they simply left the translation in the open, till it faded by itself.

(a) The two Tana'im who now argue over whether one may save forbidden Kesavim on Shabbos, are Rebbi Yossi and the Tana of Giftis (quoted above in 4b).

(b) We cannot prove that the Tana who argues with Rebbi Yossi is the Tana Kama of his Beraisa, who may well hold '*Nitnu* Likros', and we are looking for a Tana who holds Matzilin, in spite of the fact that he holds '*Lo* Nitnu Likros'.

7)

(a) Chazal said 'Kosvei Berachos ke'Sorfei Torah' - because of the ruling forbidding saving them from a fire. Consequently, if there is a fire, he will be unable to save them, and will be held responsible for writing them in the first place. (Presumably, the Gemara did not say this about those who write Kamei'os, because that is a necessity, and we do not find an Isur in that regard.)

(b) That writer of Berachos - took a whole batch of Berachos that he had written, and stuck them into a bowl of water.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael declared that the second sin was (of destroying them) was worse than the initial one of writing them.

(a)

1. 'Ein Matzilin' may well pertain only to Kesavim that are written in another language, but not to something that is written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.
2. 'Matzilin', on the other hand, might only apply to something that is written with proper ink, but not to something that is written with red paint etc.

(b) The fact that the Beraisa (which differentiates between a Megilah and other Sefarim) forbids saving a Megilah unless it is written in ink, implies that other Sefarim may be saved - even if they are *not* written in ink.

(c) The Parshah of 'Vayehi bi'Neso'a' itself - contains names of Hashem, which one would be obligated to save independently, even if there were no other letters. Consequently, the Gemara could only use that Parshah as the example of the size of a minimum Parshah, but not ask what the Din would be if one letter was missing from it.

(d) K'sav Ashuris is the script in which our Sefarim are written, whereas Ivris is the (larger) script of the Ivrim, who lived on the other side of the River Euphrates.

(a) The Targum in a Sefer-Torah - is "Yegar Sahadusa" (Vayetzei).

(b) We cannot resolve the Sha'aleh (whether one may save a Parshah with less than eighty-five letters from a fire on Shabbos) - because the Beraisa could be speaking when "Yegar Sahadusa" makes up the eighty-five letters (but not when they are on their own).

(c) The Beraisa, which mentions gathering the letters, refers to gathering complete words (even if they are scattered); whereas Rav Huna, who requires consecutive letters, is referring to letters that are not parts of whole words.