Shabbat 116b (קטז:) — the Talmud in English

:

:

A. It was written by the Meiri that nowadays when it is not the Meiri that nowadays, when it is not customary to deliver a sermon on Shabbat, it is permitted to read from the Writings, just as when it is not the time of the house of study and not in the house of study. However, in the Ba’al HaMaor it appears that the in the Ba’al HaMaor it appears that the prohibition remains even after the custom of delivering sermons was discontinued. [His wording requires explanation.] B. The Tzafnat Pane’ach explains the custom of changing The Tzafnat Pane’ach explains the custom of changing the wording on Shabbat in the Harachaman section after Grace after Meals, from “He makes great the salvation of His anointed” to “He is a great tower,” because the verse is stated in Psalms as “He makes great,” while in Samuel it is “He is a great tower.” On Shabbat they changed it to recite the verse from the Prophets rather than from the Writings, because of the enactment not to read the Writings on Shabbat.

The Jerusalem Talmud derived this law from Daniel The Jerusalem Talmud derived this law from Daniel [3], where Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were saved from the fiery furnace together with their garments. And in the Tanhuma this law was compared And in the Tanhuma [Vayera 9], this law was compared to the principle that everything attached to a righteous person is saved in his merit, like Lot, who was saved in Abraham’s merit, as it is written in Genesis [19:29], and like “every living creature and every animal” in the ark, which were saved from the Flood in Noah’s merit [ibid., 8:1]. And in the Jerusalem Talmud of tractate Chagiga Rabbi Meir said that he of tractate Chagiga [chapter 2a], Rabbi Meir said that he would save his teacher, “Aḥer,” Elisha ben Avuya, from Gehinnom, just as one rescues the case of a Torah scroll together with the scroll. That is, because Rabbi Meir would be in the Garden of Eden, his teacher would also merit being there with him. It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud that if the case in the Jerusalem Talmud that if the case is attached to the scroll, it is obvious that it may be rescued. The Mishna is speaking of a case that is not attached. And the Merkavat HaMishna pointed out that Maimonides ruled the Merkavat HaMishna pointed out that Maimonides ruled, with regard to ritual impurity of the hands [Laws of the Primary Sources of Impurity 9:10], that a Torah-scroll case imparts impurity only when it is attached to the scroll, whereas here he rules that every case may be rescued together with the scroll. He explained that the Sages decreed impurity only upon something secondary that is attached to the scroll. But with regard to rescue, they permitted even bringing a case for the purpose of rescuing a Torah scroll, out of respect for the scroll, so that it would not be rescued uncovered. Na manides asked What is the novelty here Naḥmanides asked: What is the novelty here? Is it not permitted to move a basket of fruit containing a stone? [below, 142b]. The Ran asked Is the case not a The Ran asked: Is the case not a base for both a prohibited object and a permitted object? He answered that even if the money is the principal object, it is permitted. He also answered that the novelty is that one may rescue the money from a fire, because the Sages did not prohibit rescuing it. The Shul an Arukh cited the opinion that The Shul an Arukh cited the opinion that The Shul an Arukh cited the opinion that The Shulḥan Arukh [334:2] cited the opinion that it is permitted to rescue money from a fire, and that they did not prohibit this because of the prohibition of muktzeh, an object set aside from use, or because of concern that one might extinguish the fire, because of financial loss. If so, it is difficult: what does the Mishna teach by saying that one may rescue the Torah-scroll case with money, implying that without the scroll it is prohibited? The Mishna Berura explained [334:43] that together with the scroll, one may rescue it even to a courtyard that is not enclosed in accordance with the laws of carrying, and that one need not shake the money out of the case, as the Gemara explains.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse says [Proverbs 16]:

The Sha’agat Aryeh inferred from the Gemara that The Sha’agat Aryeh [59] inferred from the Gemara that a reason is required for stripping the entire hide. There is no permission merely because this is what is done on a weekday, because when one can change the procedure and reduce exertion on Shabbat, he may not perform it as on a weekday, as explained in Menahot [63b]. Therefore, the Gemara asks: what element of “for His sake” is present here? He rejected this inference, saying that perhaps the Sages hold that it is permitted to add exertion even when the mitzva can be fulfilled in another way. The Gemara’s question here is not why it is “permitted” to strip the hide, but rather that the Sages appear to “require” stripping the entire hide; the question is what the reason for this is.