Shabbat 115a — the Talmud in English

A baraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: When Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location of page")

it is permitted to trim vegetables.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: When Yom Kippur falls on a weekday —

one may split nuts and pick the seeds from pomegranates from Mincha onward, because of anguish of spirit.

For from the time of Mincha, they already anticipate eating, and from then there is great anguish of spirit in engaging with food.

Those of

the household of

Rav Yehuda

were

trimming cabbage,

that is, cabbage.

The household of Rabba Garadi

were scraping

gourds,

that is, gourds.

When he saw

Rabba

that they were doing it early,

doing it before the time of Mincha, at a time when there was not yet anguish of spirit, when they had not permitted it.

And Rabba could not prevent them from their practice and forbid them to trim at that time if he were to tell them that he was the one forbidding this to them.

Therefore

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

a letter arrived from the Land of Israel,

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that it is forbidden

to trim vegetables on Yom Kippur before the time of Mincha.

We shall return to you, chapter “These are the knots.”

Introduction to the Chapter “All the Writings”

In this chapter are explained the laws of rescue from a fire on Shabbat.

On the one hand, the Sages were concerned lest a person be frantic to save his property at the time of a fire and come to extinguish the fire. Therefore, they established restrictions on rescue from a fire, such as the quantity of food and clothing that one is permitted to save .

But, on the other hand, the Sages were lenient in saving sacred writings from a fire. And they permitted taking them out in order to save them from the fire even to certain places to which it is forbidden rabbinically to take them out and carry within them.

The first Mishna deals with the laws of sacred writings that one is permitted to save on Shabbat.

Mishna:

All sacred writings,

whether a Torah scroll, whose sanctity is stringent, or books of Prophets and books of Writings, whose sanctity is lighter,

they may be saved from a fire,

it is permitted to trouble oneself to save them and take them out because of the fire , even to an alleyway that is not a thoroughfare, which was not properly repaired so that one could carry within it .

This special permission of rescue because of a fire applies

both

to sacred writings

from which they read

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

and both

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

from which they do not read

on Shabbat.

And they save them

even though they are written in every language,

because although one does not read from them, nevertheless they possess sanctity. And they are

subject to burial,

that is, one must preserve them, and it is forbidden to place them in an ownerless place.

And for what reason do they not read from them,

from the books of Writings, on Shabbat?

Because of neglect of the study hall.

For they were accustomed to expound before the public on Shabbat, and during the discourse they would teach the people the laws of what is forbidden and permitted. This is preferable to reading from the Writings; therefore, they do not read from the Writings on Shabbat, so that they will not become absorbed in their reading and refrain from coming to the discourse on laws.

Gemara:

It was stated:

All sacred writings that

were written in Aramaic translation or in every language—

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

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

The Gemara explains their dispute:

According to the one who says:

Sacred writings that were written in every language

were given

permission

to read from them—

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,

does not dispute that they may be saved .

They dispute

according to the one who says

in tractate Megillah that sacred writings written in Aramaic translation or in every language

were not given permission to read from them .

Rav Huna said: They may not be saved—

for they were not given permission to read from them.

Rav Hisda said: They may be saved—

because of the disgrace of sacred writings.

And we raise an objection to Rav Huna, for

we learned

in our Mishna:

All sacred writings may be saved from a fire, whether those from which one reads or those from which one does not read, even though they are written in every language.

Is it not so that

this is the meaning of our Mishna: all sacred writings,

whether

those from which one reads—

Prophets,

and

whether

those from which one does not read—

Writings.

Even though they are written in every language—

and the novelty added by the tan in the wording “even though” is

that they were not

given permission to read from them.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

at the beginning of the Mishna—

“They may be saved

from the fire.”

A refutation of Rav Huna,

who said that sacred writings written in Aramaic translation and in the other languages may not be saved, according to the one who says that they were not given permission to read from them.

Rav Huna could say to you: But can you understand

that indeed the Mishna should be interpreted this way, that “even though they are written in every language” refers above, that is, to the beginning of the Mishna, which says that sacred writings may be saved from a fire; and even though they were not given permission to read from them, they may be saved from the fire?

Say:

the Mishna appears, according to your words, to state a law in its own right in

the end: “They are subject to burial.”

It is well according to my words: the interpretation of the Mishna is that even though they are written in every language and one does not read from them, and therefore they are not saved, nevertheless they are subject to burial.

But according to your words, that at first the Mishna innovated that they may be saved from the fire even on Shabbat because of their sanctity, despite not having been given permission to read from them, and at the end the Mishna states a new and separate law, that they are subject to burial, this is difficult:

Now,

according to your words, even

we save

on Shabbat sacred writings written in Aramaic translation and in the other languages, and we are lenient concerning the prohibitions of Shabbat for the sake of saving them.

If so, the fact that it is forbidden to abandon them deliberately and that one is obligated to bring them to

burial—

is it necessary

to say?!

Rather,

because of this question, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation of our Mishna and explains it as follows:

Rav Huna explains according to his reasoning, and Rav Hisda explains according to his reasoning.

Rav Huna explains according to his reasoning:

this is what the tan said in our Mishna: all sacred writings,

whether those from which one reads—

Prophets,

or those from which one does not read—

Writings,

may be saved from the fire.

In what circumstance is this statement said,

that they may be saved on Shabbat?

When they are written in the holy language.

But

if they were written

in every language—

they may not be saved,

since they were not given permission to read from them.

And even so—

they require burial.

If they wore out, they are buried because of their sanctity.

Rav Hisda explains according to his reasoning:

this is what the tan said: all sacred writings,

whether those from which one reads—

Prophets,

or those from which one does not read—

Writings,

even though they are written in every language

and one does not read from them—

they too may be saved,

and it is obvious that they are subject to burial.

And this is what he said:

the tan said at the end that there is a novel matter concerning burial:

And the worm-eaten material,

decay,

of them,

formed as a result of the worms’ eating—

is subject to burial.

An objection was raised

to Rav Huna from an explicit beraita, which says:

If they were written in Aramaic translation or in every language—

they may be saved from a fire.

A refutation of Rav Huna.

Rav Huna could say to you: This tan

of the beraita

holds

the view that

they were given permission to read from them.

And Rav Huna agrees that if they were given permission to read from them, they may be saved.

Come and hear

from an explicit beraita that says that even according to the one who says that one does not read from them, one is obligated to save them:

Sacred writings that

were written

in the language of

Egyptian, Median, Hebrew,

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

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

they may be saved from a fire.

A refutation of Rav Huna!

Rav Huna said to you:

it is a dispute

between tannaim

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

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

they rescue them from the fire.

Rabbi Yosei says: They do 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 Great [this is what a great person was called, and he was the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder]

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 he was reading from it.

He said to him

Abba Ḥalafta to Rabban Gamliel:

I remember Rabban Gamliel

the Elder,

your father's father, who was standing beside the upper part of the ascent on the Temple Mount, and they brought before him the Book of Job

written in the language of

translation.

And

Rabban Gamliel the Elder

said to a builder

one of the builders on the Temple Mount:

Sink it,

bury this 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 beneath the course of stones that they sank it, but rather

a trough

full

of mortar was overturned upon it,

and they covered it with mortar.

Rabbi said: There are two objections

there are difficulties

concerning the matter

that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said:

One—

and is there mortar on the Temple Mount?

For 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

he places them in a place of danger,

where they are liable to be lost,

and they decay of themselves .

The Gemara explains what Rav Huna said: that his dispute with Rav Ḥisda concerning rescuing a translation [according to the one who says that they were not given to be read from] is a dispute between tannaim, and he himself rules according to the one who says that they are not rescued—

which tannaim?

What dispute between tannaim does he mean?