Shabbat 115b (קטו:) — the Talmud in English

If you say

the dispute between the tanna’im in the beraita in which

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei disagree,

Rav Huna maintains that Rav Ḥisda follows the view of the first tanna, who says that they may be rescued, while Rav Huna himself follows Rabbi Yosei, who says that they may not be rescued.

One must ask: From where does Rav Huna know that the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei concerns the view that they were not given to be read?

Perhaps in this matter itself

indeed

they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, concerning whether it is permitted to read from them, and their dispute is as follows:

One,

the first tanna,

holds: They were given to be read,

and therefore one may rescue them.

And the other,

Rabbi Yosei,

holds: They were not given to be read,

and therefore one may not rescue them.

But according to the one who says that they were not given to be read, the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei do not disagree; both maintain that according to that view they may not be rescued, in accordance with Rav Huna.

If so, Rav Huna cannot explain that Rav Ḥisda, who says that they may be rescued, follows the first tanna. It is obvious that he does not follow Rabbi Yosei, but there is no proof from the first tanna that he follows Rav Ḥisda.

Rather,

the dispute between tanna’im that Rav Huna means is that between

Rabbi Yosei,

who says that they may not be rescued and therefore necessarily follows Rav Huna,

and the tanna of Gifta

[on the preceding page], who explicitly says that even according to the one who says that they were not given to be read, they may be rescued.

The Sages taught:

The writings of

the blessings,

in which the wording of the blessings is written, as well as the blessings of the Eighteen Benedictions,

and amulets

in which verses are written as a remedy for illness, fear, and the like,

even though they contain letters of the Divine Name, and

there are written in them

matters

from

many passages of the Torah—

one may not rescue them from the fire

on Shabbat.

Rather,

if a fire breaks out on Shabbat, they

are burned where they are, together with their mentions of the Divine Names .

From here they said: Those who write blessings—

are like those who burn

Torah!

For if a fire breaks out on Shabbat, they will be unable to rescue them, and therefore they should not write them .

There was an incident involving a certain man who was writing

blessings

in

the city of

Sidon.

They came and informed Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Yishmael went to investigate him,

to determine whether the report was indeed true.

When he was ascending

toward him

on a ladder,

he noticed him.

The man took

a

volume,

a collection of writings

of blessings, and submerged it in a cup of water,

so that Rabbi Yishmael would not notice it.

And in these words Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Greater

is

the punishment

that you deserve for the latter act,

the last,

for submerging the blessings in water,

than

the punishment for the first act,

the first,

for writing them .

The Exilarch asked Rabbah bar Rav Huna:

What is the status of sacred writings that were not written with ink in accordance with halakha, but

were written with sam, sikra, gum, or vitriol,

which are unfit for writing sacred writings, although they were written

in the Holy Tongue—

whether

may one rescue them from the fire, or may one not rescue them?

This question may be raised according to both views:

It may be raised,

one may question it

according to the one who says that one may rescue

sacred writings written in any language. And likewise

it may be raised,

one may question it also

according to the one who says that one may not rescue.

It may be raised according to the one who says that one may not rescue:

for perhaps

this statement applies

that one may not rescue specifically

when they are written in Aramaic or in any other language.

But here, when they are written in the Holy Tongue—

one may rescue them.

Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that one may rescue

Aramaic and other-language writings,

this statement applies—

when they are written in ink, for

the writing in ink

endures,

remaining intact for a long time.

But here,

the writing composed with sam or sikra,

since it does not endure,

for as long a time as ink, perhaps

one does not

rescue them?

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said:

One may not rescue them.

The Exilarch said to him:

But Rav Hamnuna taught,

he taught a beraita stating that

one may rescue

writings of this kind!?

He said to him: If it was taught—

it was taught.

What—

where

was this taught,

this law?

Rav Ashi said: As it was taught: There is no

difference

between

the laws governing the writing of

scrolls and

the writing of a

Megilla, except

for this distinction alone:

scrolls may be written in any language, whereas

a

Megilla

is not fit to be read

until it is written in Ashurit,

on parchment and in ink.

It follows that only a Megilla must specifically be written in ink, whereas other scrolls may also be written with sam or sikra. If so, they possess full sanctity, and therefore one rescues them from the fire .

Rav Huna bar Ḥaluv asked Rav Naḥman:

A Torah scroll

from which most of its letters were erased, or which became worn so that most of its letters can no longer be discerned, to the point

that it does not contain

throughout the scroll

enough to gather

from it [that is, so that there do not remain in it] even

eighty-five letters,

the number of letters that constitutes the minimum measure for a Torah scroll to retain its sanctity ,

such as

the total number of letters in

the passage “And it was when the Ark journeyed”,

which is considered a book in its own right, as will be explained below—

May one

rescue it from the fire, or may one not rescue it?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said:

Then you should raise the question concerning the passage “And it was when the Ark journeyed” itself

if it was written separately and one letter was missing from it: what is the law concerning rescuing it?

Rav Huna bar Ḥaluv said to him:

Where the passage “And it was when the Ark set forth” is lacking—

I have no question.

Since it contains references

to the name of God, therefore

even though it does not contain eighty-five letters—

it is saved

because of the references that remain in it.

When I raised the question, it was concerning a Torah scroll that does not contain enough to collect

eighty-five letters—and contains no references at all—

what is the law?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

It is not saved.

He raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman from a beraita in which we learned:

A translation

of the Torah [as explained below, “Yegar Sahaduta”]

that was written

in the language of

Scripture

and not in the language of translation;

and

similarly, the language of

Scripture

in the Torah

that was written in translation;

and

similarly, if he

wrote

in the script of

the ancient Hebrew

and not in the Ashurit script in which Torah scrolls are written—

they are saved from the fire.

And needless to say, a translation in Ezra, in Daniel, and in the Torah,

which was written properly in the language of translation, is saved from the fire.

And the Gemara derives:

A translation in the Torah—

what is it? [Genesis 31]

“Yegar Sahaduta” .

“Yegar Sahaduta.”

The Gemara understood that he had written only the two words “Yegar Sahaduta,” and nevertheless they are saved from the fire,

even though it does not contain eighty-five letters!

And it is explicitly stated in the beraita that fewer than eighty-five letters are saved?

And we answer:

When that [beraita] was taught—

that is, where it contains additional letters, and these two words are suitable

to complete

the count of eighty-five letters.

They raised a dilemma before them: These eighty-five letters—

must they be

concentrated

in one place,

or

can they be

scattered?

Rav Huna said:

specifically

when they are concentrated.

Rav Ḥisda said: Even when they are scattered.

They raised an objection

to Rav Huna from a beraita in which we learned:

A Torah scroll that has become worn out: If it contains enough to collect eighty-five letters, such as the passage “And it was when the Ark set forth”—

they save it; but if not—

they do not save it.

The expression “to collect” teaches that the reference is to scattered letters.

This is a refutation of Rav Huna!

Rav Ḥisda explained it

by resolving it

in accordance with

the view of

Rav Huna,

saying that the beraita is referring

to

the collection

of

complete words, even when the words are scattered. Their dispute, Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, concerns only the collection of scattered letters.

The Sages taught: [Numbers 10]

“And it was when the Ark set forth, and Moses said.”

“And it was when the Ark set forth, and Moses

said”: The Holy One, blessed be He, made markings for this passage

in the form of an inverted letter nun, one

above,

before it,

and

one

below,

after it, in order to separate it from the passages before and after it .