Shabbat 115a (קטו.) — the Talmud in English

A beraita supports Rabbi Yohanan: When Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat

it is permitted to trim vegetables.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: When Yom Kippur falls on a weekday —

one may crack nuts and peel pomegranates from the afternoon prayer onward, because of distress.

For by the time of the afternoon prayer, people are already anticipating the meal, and from then onward there is great distress in engaging with food.

The household of

members of the household of

Rav Yehuda

were

trimming cabbage,

cabbage.

The household of Rabba Garadi

were scraping

pumpkins,

gourds.

When

Rabba

saw that they were doing it early,

carrying this out before the time of the afternoon prayer, at a time when there was not yet any distress, when it had not been permitted.

Rabba could not prevent them from their practice and forbid them to trim vegetables at that time if he told them that he was the one forbidding it.

Therefore,

he said to them: A letter has arrived from the West,

it had arrived from Eretz Yisrael,

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that it is forbidden

to trim vegetables on Yom Kippur before the time of the afternoon prayer.

We shall return to you, chapter “And These Are the Knots.”

Introduction to the chapter “All the Writings”

This chapter explains the laws governing the rescue of objects from a fire on Shabbat.

On the one hand, the Sages were concerned lest a person be frantic to save his property during a fire and come to extinguish the flames. Therefore, they established restrictions on rescue from a fire, such as limiting the amount of food and clothing that one may save .

On the other hand, the Sages were lenient regarding the rescue of sacred writings from a fire. They permitted taking them out in order to save them from the fire, even to certain places to which it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry or transfer objects.

The first Mishna deals with the laws governing sacred writings that may be rescued on Shabbat.

Mishna:

All sacred writings,

whether a Torah scroll, whose sanctity is stringent, or books of the Prophets and books of the Writings, whose sanctity is less stringent—

may be rescued from a fire;

it is permitted to trouble oneself to rescue them and remove them because of the fire , even to an unpartitioned alleyway that was not properly arranged so that carrying would be permitted in it .

This special permission to rescue from a fire applies

both

to sacred writings

that are read from

on Shabbat, such as a Torah scroll and books of the Prophets,

and

to sacred writings, such as the books of the Writings,

that are not read from

on Shabbat.

And one rescues them

even when they are written in any language,

because although they are not read from, they nevertheless possess sanctity. They are

in need of geniza,

meaning that they must be safeguarded, and it is prohibited to leave them in an ownerless place.

And why are they not read from

the books of the Writings on Shabbat?

Because of the interruption of the beit-midrash.

It was customary to deliver homilies before the public on Shabbat, and during the homily the people were taught the laws of what is prohibited and permitted. This is preferable to reading from the Writings. Therefore, the Writings are not read on Shabbat, lest people become drawn into reading them and refrain from coming to the homily on halakhic matters.

Gemara:

It was stated:

With regard to all sacred writings that

were written in Aramaic or in any language—

Rav Huna said: They may not be rescued from a fire.

And Rav Hisda said: They may be rescued from a fire.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

According to the one who says:

Sacred writings that were written in any language

were given

permission

to be read from—

Rav Huna said: They may not be rescued— because they were not given to be read from. Rav Hisda said: They may be rescued— because of the disgrace to sacred writings. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna, as we learned in our Mishna: All sacred writings may be rescued from a fire, whether they are read from or whether they are not read from, even if they are written in any language. Is that not the meaning of our Mishna: All sacred writings— whether those that are read from— the Prophets, and whether those that are not read from— the Writings,

everyone,

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda,

agrees that they may be rescued .

They disagree

according to the one who says

in tractate Megilla that sacred writings written in Aramaic or in any language

were not given permission to be read from .

Rav Huna said: They may not be rescued—

because they were not given permission to be read from.

Rav Hisda said: They may be rescued—

because of the disgrace of sacred writings.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna, as

we learned

in our Mishna:

All sacred writings may be rescued from a fire, whether they are read from or whether they are not read from, even though they are written in any language.

Is that not

the meaning of our Mishna: All sacred writings,

whether

those from which one reads—

the Prophets,

and

whether

those from which one does not read—

the Writings.

Even though they are written in any language—

and the novelty added by the tanna through the expression “even though” is

that they were not

given permission to be read from.

And

nevertheless,

it teaches

at the beginning of the Mishna:

“They may be rescued

from the fire.”

This is a refutation of Rav Huna,

who said that, according to the one who holds that they were not given permission to be read from, sacred writings written in Aramaic and other languages are not rescued.

Rav Huna could say to you: But can you understand it so?

Do you really think that this is how the Mishna should be interpreted—that “even though they are written in any language” refers back to the beginning of the Mishna, meaning that sacred writings are rescued from a fire even though they were not given permission to be read from?

Say

that, according to your interpretation, the Mishna should be understood as teaching an independent law in its

final clause: “They require geniza.”

Granted, according to my position, the interpretation of the Mishna is: Even though they are written in any language and are not read from, and therefore are not rescued, nevertheless they require geniza.

But according to you, who say that the Mishna first teaches that they are rescued from a fire, even on Shabbat, because of their sanctity, despite the fact that they were not given permission to be read from, and then in its final clause teaches a new and separate law—that they require geniza—this is difficult:

Now,

according to your position, even

we rescue them on Shabbat—sacred writings written in Aramaic and in other languages—and we are lenient regarding Shabbat prohibitions for the sake of saving them.

they require storage.

If so, the fact that it is prohibited to deliberately abandon them and that they must be brought to

geniza—

would it need

to be stated?!

Rather,

on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation of our Mishna and explains it as follows:

Rav Huna explains it in accordance with his reasoning, and Rav Hisda explains it in accordance with his reasoning.

Rav Huna explains it in accordance with his reasoning:

This is what the tanna said in our Mishna: All sacred writings—

whether those from which one reads—

the Prophets,

or whether those from which one does not read—

the Writings—

may be rescued from a fire.

When are these words applicable,

that they may be rescued on Shabbat?

When they are written in the sacred language.

But

if they were written

in any language—

they may not be rescued,

since they were not given permission to be read from.

And even so—

they require geniza.

If they have become worn out, they must be placed in geniza because of their sanctity.

Rav Hisda explains it in accordance with his reasoning:

This is what the tanna said: All sacred writings—

whether those from which one reads—

the Prophets,

or whether those from which one does not read—

the Writings—

even though they are written in any language,

and are not read from—

they too may be rescued,

and it is obvious that they require geniza.

And this is what the tanna is saying

in the final clause, that there is a novel point with regard to geniza:

And their decay,

their decomposed remnants,

belonging to them,

which are produced as a result of the worms eating them—

require geniza.

Meytivi

to Rav Huna from an explicit beraita, which states:

If they were written in Aramaic or in any language—

they may be rescued from a fire.

This is a refutation of Rav Huna.

Rav Huna could say to you: This tanna

of the beraita

holds

the opinion that

they were given permission to be read from.

And Rav Huna agrees that if they were given permission to be read from, they are rescued.

Ta shma

from an explicit beraita stating that even according to the one who says that they are not read from, one is obligated to rescue them:

Sacred writings that

were written

in the language of

the Egyptian, Median, Hebrew

in the script of “the other side of the river,”

Elamite, or Greek, even though they were not given permission to be read from—

they may be rescued from a fire.

A refutation of Rav Huna!

Rav Huna said to you:

it is a dispute

between tanna’im

whether, according to the one who says that they were not given to be read, one may rescue them from the fire.

As it was taught in a beraita: If they were written in Aramaic or in any other language—

one may rescue them from the fire.

Rabbi Yosei says: One may not rescue them from the fire.

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Abba Ḥalafta,

Rabbi Yosei was the son of Rabbi Ḥalafta

who went to Rabban Gamliel the Distinguished,

this was the title of a great man, and he was the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder

in Tiberias, and found him sitting at the table of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nizuf, with a translation of the Book of Job in his hand, and reading from it.

He said to him,

Abba Ḥalafta said to Rabban Gamliel:

I remember Rabban Gamliel,

the Elder,

your grandfather, standing on the upper landing on the Temple Mount, when they brought him a Book of Job

written in the language of

Aramaic.

And

Rabban Gamliel the Elder

said to a builder,

one of the builders on the Temple Mount:

Sink it,

bury this Aramaic translation,

beneath the course of stones,

a row of stones in a building!

He too commanded him, and he buried it.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

It was not sunk beneath a course of stones; rather,

a trough

full

of mortar was overturned upon it,

and it was covered with mortar.

Rabbi said: There are two objections

that may be raised

to the matter

stated by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda:

One—

is there mortar on the Temple Mount?

They did not build there with mortar, but with other materials [see Rashi].

And furthermore: Is it permitted to destroy them

the translated sacred writings

by hand?

Rather,

only

one places them in a place of decay,

where they are liable to be lost,

and they decay on their own .

The Gemara now explains Rav Huna’s statement that his dispute with Rav Ḥisda concerning rescuing a translation [according to the one who says that they were not given to be read] is a dispute between tanna’im, and that Rav Huna himself rules in accordance with the one who says that they may not be rescued:

Which tanna’im?

Which dispute between tanna’im does he mean?