Shabbat 116a (קטז.) — the Talmud in English

To say to us,

that this is not its proper place,

for the proper place of this passage is in the section of Numbers dealing with the banners, where the order of the journeys is described.

Rabbi says:

Indeed, this is the proper place of this passage, since immediately beforehand it was mentioned that they journeyed from Mount Sinai. If so, the reason for the inverted letters before and after it is

not what you said,

that the inverted letters come to indicate that it should be moved from its place;

that is not the reason.

Rather,

the inverted letters were written in order to mark it especially,

because

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

is a book in its own right.

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: [Proverbs 9]

Proverbs 9]

“She has hewn her pillars, seven”—

these are the seven books of the Torah.

In accordance with whose opinion is this?

In accordance with Rabbi’s,

according to whom the Book of Numbers is divided into three books: the first extends until “And it was when the Ark journeyed”; the second is “And it was when the Ark journeyed”; and the third extends from after “And it was when the Ark journeyed” until the end.

Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi?

It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this passage will be uprooted from here and written in its proper place,

in the future, when they will no longer fear calamity and the evil inclination will be nullified.

And why was it written here?

In order to separate the first calamity from the second calamity.

What is the second calamity? [Numbers 11]

Numbers 11]

“And the people were as complainers.”

The first calamity is [Numbers 10]

Numbers 10]

“And they journeyed from the mountain of the Lord.”

And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

This teaches

that they turned away from following the Lord,

and they craved meat within three days of their journey from Mount Sinai.

And where is the proper place

for the passage “And it was when the Ark journeyed”?

Rav Ashi said: In

the section of Numbers dealing with the

banners.

They raised a dilemma: The blank margins,

the smooth parchment on which nothing is written [and the Gemara assumes that the question concerns both the margins above and below the writing and the portions that were written and then erased]

of a Torah scroll—

whether

one may rescue them from the fire, or whether one may not rescue them from the fire.

Come and hear: With regard to a Torah scroll that has become worn, if it contains eighty-five letters that can be gathered together, such as the passage “And it was when the Ark journeyed”—

one may rescue it.

But if not—

one may not rescue it.

And why?

Let it go out,

since it should be rescued

because of its margins.

Rather, it is proven that one may not rescue the margins.

And we reject this: A Torah scroll that has

become worn is different.

Since the scroll has become worn, even the designation “margin” is no longer applicable to it, for it is not considered the margin of a Torah scroll. The dilemma concerns only a scroll that has not become worn, but whose letters have been erased, so that it is still designated as the margin of a Torah scroll.

Come and hear: With regard to a Torah scroll from which the writing has been erased,

if it contains eighty-five letters that can be gathered together, such as the passage “And it was when the Ark journeyed”—

one may rescue it; but if not—

one may not rescue it.

And why

may one not rescue it?

Let it go out,

since it should be rescued

because of its margin!

And we reject this:

The place of the writing,

after it has been erased,

is not what I am asking about,

for it is obvious that it is not sacred and may not be rescued.

For when is it sacred?

When the place of the writing was consecrated initially, it was consecrated only for writing, and only

by virtue of

the

writing

upon it

is it sacred,

as long as the writing remains. Therefore, when

the writing is gone,

when it has been erased,

its sanctity departs

from that portion of the margin.

What I am asking about is

the portion of the margin

above and below, between one passage and another, between one page and another, at the beginning of the scroll and at the end of the scroll,

which, at the time it was consecrated, was consecrated as a margin on which one does not write; therefore, its sanctity is not annulled when the writing is erased.

And we inquire concerning this: This dilemma should be resolved from the beraita.

Why did the beraita require that eighty-five letters remain in the Torah scroll in order for it to be rescued? Even if it were completely erased, it should still be rescued, because

let it go out

that it should be rescued even when it has been entirely erased

because of that

portion of the margin that is not the place of the writing, whose sanctity continues even after the scroll has been erased, since it was consecrated as a margin not intended for writing.

And from the fact that the beraita did not state this, it is proven that one may not rescue it because of the sanctity of the margins!?

And we answer: The beraita is speaking of a case

where one cut it,

where one cut away that portion,

and threw it away,

and only the erased place of the writing remained.

Come and hear: The margins above and below, between one passage and another, between one page and another, at the beginning of the scroll and at the end of the scroll—

they possess the sanctity of a Torah scroll, and therefore

they render the hands impure.

The Sages decreed that one who touches a Torah scroll has impure hands with regard to teruma, so that if he touches it, he will disqualify it [the reason for this is explained above, on 14a]. It is proven from the beraita, which states that they also decreed that the margins render one who touches them impure with the impurity of the hands with regard to teruma, that the sanctity of the margins is like the sanctity of the scroll. If so, they should be rescued from the fire even when the writing has been erased.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the sanctity of the margins

by virtue of the Torah scroll,

when the writing has not been erased and the scroll is entirely intact,

is different.

Only then do they render the hands impure like the scroll itself.

But when the scroll has been erased, the sanctity of the margins is no longer like that of the Torah scroll itself; rather, they possess only the independent sanctity of margins. Therefore, we must leave unresolved whether such lesser sanctity permits rescuing them from the fire.

Come and hear: The margins, and

likewise

the books

of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings that were written by

heretics—

one may not rescue them from the fire; rather,

they are

burned in their place, they and the mentions of God’s Name in them.

Is it not

the margins of a Torah scroll?

The beraita explicitly states that one may not rescue them.

And we reject this:

No.

The intention of the beraita is to say that one may not rescue

the margins of the books

of the Torah

written by heretics.

And we question this:

Now, if the books

of the Torah

written by heretics themselves may not be rescued, is it necessary to state that their

margins

which are merely theirs,

need

to be declared non-rescuable?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying—

the tanna of the beraita:

And the books

of the Torah

written by

heretics are like margins,

of a valid Torah scroll, which may not be rescued.

The fundamental passage: The margins and the books of heretics—

one may not rescue

them from the fire.

Rabbi Yosei says: On

a

weekday, one

cuts out

the mentions of God’s Name that they contain,

and stores them in geniza, while the rest

he burns.

Rabbi Tarfon said: I will bury my sons,

an oath, by which he accepts upon himself a curse that, if his statement is untrue, his sons should die during his lifetime,

that if

books of heretics

come into my hands, I will burn them and the mentions of God’s Name in them.

For even if a person is pursuing him to kill him, or a snake is running to bite him,

and he must flee and save his life,

he enters a house of idol worship, but he does not enter the houses of these people.

For these,

the heretics,

recognize

their Creator

and

nevertheless

deny

Him.

But those,

the worshippers of idols,

do not recognize

the Holy One, Blessed be He, for that is how they were raised in their parents’ homes, without knowledge,

and

because of their ignorance they

deny

Him.

And concerning them,

the heretics,

the verse says [Isaiah 57]:

Isaiah 57]

“And behind the door and the doorpost you have set your remembrance.”

That is, they remember the Creator, but it is as though they cast His remembrance behind the door.

Rabbi Yishmael said:

We can derive the law concerning books of heretics by means of a

kal va-chomer: If, in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said,

in the passage concerning the examination of a sota,

“My Name,”

the Name of the Lord,

which was written in sanctity,

shall be erased in the water

that is given to the sota, so that if it becomes clear that she is pure, peace will be restored between her and her husband—

These heretics,

who sow jealousy, enmity, and rivalry between Israel and their Father in Heaven—

all the more so

should the Divine Names in their books be erased together with the books themselves.

And concerning them David said [תהלים קלט]

Psalms 139]

“Do I not hate those who hate You,

Hashem

—

—I hate them.

And with those who rise up against You

—

—I contend. I hate them with the utmost hatred;

they have become enemies to me.”

And just as one may not rescue their scrolls

their books

from a fire,

so they do not rescue them from a collapse, from water, or from

any

other

thing

that destroys them.

Yosef bar Ḥanin asked Rabbi Abbahu: What is the ruling concerning these books of Bei Abidan—

written by the heretics in order to debate with us [“Bei Abidan” was the place where debates with the heretics were held]—whether

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

Rabbi Abbahu did not have a clear answer. Rather, at times he said to him:

Yes,

indeed, one may rescue them.

And

And at times he said to him:

No,

one may not rescue them.

And

And the matter was

uncertain,

unsettled and not definitive,

in his hands.

Rav would not go to Bei Abidan, and certainly not to Bei Nitzrefei,

a place of idol worship.

As for Shmuel, to Bei Nitzrefei

he would not go,

but

to Bei Abidan

he would go.

They said to Rava: Why did you not come to Bei Abidan?

He said to them: There is a certain palm tree along the road,

there is a certain palm tree on the road, whose roots create bumps in the road,

and it is difficult for me

to go there [and I would have to push my way through with difficulty].

They said to him:

Let us uproot it,

the palm tree, so that the bumps it creates in the ground will no longer trouble you.

He said to them:

Its place,

the place itself, where a hollow will remain once it is uprooted, or its smell, which will remain there,

is difficult for me.

Rav and Rava were afraid to go and debate with the heretics, lest during the debate they rise up against them and kill them.

Mar bar Yosef said: I

am one of their acquaintances,

among those who know them,

I am, and

and therefore

I am not afraid

I do not fear

them.

Once he went, and they sought to endanger him.

Imma Shalom, the wife

his wife

of Rabbi Eliezer

was the sister

the sister

of Rabban Gamliel.

There was a certain philosopher,

a heretic,

in his neighborhood,

in her vicinity.