1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses saving Kisvei Kodesh from a fire on Shabbos. A Sefer-Torah is certainly permitted - and Nevi'im and Kesuvim are also permitted.

(b)One may take them to a Mavuy - a "cull-de-sac" which opens at one end into a Reshus ha'Rabim, but is closed at the other. The Isur is - the lack of an Eiruv (as will be explained later, which is de'Rabbanan (Rashi refers to it as an Isur Tircha - excessive bother).

(c)When the Tana says 'Bein she'Korin Bahen, Bein she'Ein Korin Bahen', the Tana is referring to - Kesuvim, which the Chachamim forbade (even private individuals from) reading them on Shabbos ...

(d)... to ensure that everyone attends Shul early on Shabbos morning, to hear the Rav's Derashah on practical Halachos).

2)

(a)The significance of the statement 'Af al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon, Te'unin Genizah' - even though, according to some opinions, it is forbidden to read it.

(b)Some commentaries confine this ruling to Kesuvim - since we know that Yonasan ben Uziel composed his Targum on Nevi'im.

(c)We counter that argument however - by pointing out that even if he did, he said it by heart, without committing it to writing.

3)

(a)According to Rav Huna, one may not save a translation of Kesuvim (or perhaps even Nevi'im) from a fire; Rav Chisda holds that one may. Rav Huna concedes that one may save them however - according to those who permit reading them.

(b)In that case, Rav Huna's opinion goes like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - who permits writing a Seifer-Torah only in Greek (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Nitnu').

(c)Even if one is not permitted to read Sefarim written in another language, Rav Chisda permits saving them - because it is degrading for a Sefer to be left to burn.

4)

(a)We query Rav Huna from a Beraisa which permits saving all Kisvei Kodesh from a fire, 'whether one may read them or not, even though they are written in a different language'. We interpret ...

1. ... 'she'Korin Bahen' - to mean Nevi'im.

2. ... 'she'Ein Korin Bahen' - to mean Kesuvim ...

(b)... yet the Tana concludes 'Matzilin', a Kashya on Rav Huna.

(c)We counter by citing the Seifa 'u'Te'unin Genizah' (which is obviously not confined to Shabbos). Now surely, we ask, if they may be saved on Shabbos, it goes without saying that they require Genizah during the week.

(d)We therefore amend the words ...

1. ... 've'Af-al Pi she'Kesuvin be'Chol Lashon (Matzilin)' according to Rav Huna, to read - 'Ein Matzilin', and is preceded by 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, she'Kesuvin be'Lashon ha'Kodesh'.

2. ... 'Te'unin Genizah', according to Rav Chisda - with reference to their worm-eaten remains ('Mekek she'Lahem').

5)

(a)Rav Huna explains the Beraisa which writes ...

1. ... 'Hayu Kesuvin Targum ... Matzilin Osan Mipnei ha'Deleikah' - by establishing it according to those who hold 'Nitnu Lik'ros'.

2. ... 'Hayu Kesuvin Targum ... Af-al-Pi she'Lo Nitnu Lik'ros Bahen, Matzilin Osan Mipnei ha'Deleikah' - by establishing his own ruling as a Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall now see.

(b)In the Beraisa that we cite, the Tana Kama permits saving Kisvei Kodesh which are written in Targum or any other language. Rebbi Yossi - prohibits it.

(c)Rebbi Yossi then tells the story of Aba Chalafta, who followed Raban Gamliel B'rivi to Teverya. 'Aba Chalafta' means 'Father Chalafta' (because he was Rebbi Yossi's father); whereas 'B'rivi' is a title meaning 'a great man').

(d)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nazuf - was Aba Chalafta's host on that occasion.

6)

(a)When Aba Chalafta saw Raban Gamliel reading a Targum translation of Seifer Iyov, he recalled something that he had seen his (Raban Gamliel)'s own grandfather do. The name of his ...

1. ... grandfather was - Raban Gamliel (ha'Zaken).

2. ... grandson was - Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi.

(b)He recalled having seen Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken, who was standing on one of steps of the Har ha'Bayis at the time - order a builder standing nearby to hide it under the stones of a building.

(c)Raban Gamliel's response to Rebbi Yossi's testimony was - to follow suite.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah had another version of what Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken did with the translation of Ezra. According to him - he placed it inside an earthenware bowl of water.

(b)Rebbi raised two objections to this Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's explanation. One of them was ... from where would Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken have obtained an earthenware bowl of water on the Har ha'Bayis? The other - by what right did he actually destroy such a work?

(c)In his opinion - he left the translation in the open, where it would soon rot (or be destroyed by the elements).

8)

(a)We reject the suggestion that the Machlokes Tana'im to which we referred is that of the Tana Kama (Rav Chisda) and Rebbi Yossi (Rav Huna) - because it is possible that the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Nitan Lik'ros' (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Yossi), whereas both Rav Huna and Rav Chisda are arguing according to the opinion that holds 'Lo Nitan Lik'ros'.

(b)We must therefore be referring to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi (in this Beraisa) and the Tana of Giftis (the previous Beraisa, which specifically holds like Rav Chisda (as we explained).

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that, when there is a fire - one is not permitted to save Berachos (the equivalent of our Sidurim) and Kemei'in. They must be left to burn, even if they contain letters of Hash-m's Holy name.

(b)When he refers to 'u'me'Inyanos Harbeh she'ba'Torah' - he is referring to Pesukim (that one tends to insert inside Kemei'os), such as "Kol ha'Machalah Asher Samti be'Mitzrayim Lo Asim Alecha", and the likes.

(c)Chazal therefore said - those people who write Berachos are considered as if they had burned the Torah (This Isur was later rescinded out of necessity). (Presumably, this does not refer to the Kosvei Kemei'os, because that is a necessity, and there is no prohibition to do so).

10)

(a)They reported to Rebbi Yishmael that there was a man in Tzidon - who was writing Berachos.

(b)When the latter arrived to investigate - he found him climbing a ladder (with a fresh batch of notes that he had just written, in hand).

(c)And when he spotted Rebbi Yishmael on his trail - he stuffed them into a bowl of water.

(d)Rebbi Yishmael commented - that the second sin was worse than the first one.

11)

(a)The Resh Galusa asked Raba bar Rav Huna whether one may save Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim that are written with ointment, red paint, glue or vitriol (instead of ink). This might be a She'eilah even according to those who rule that by Nevi'im and Kesuvim ...

1. ... 'Ein Matzilin' - because that is only when they are written Targum or in another language, but not when they are written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

2. ... 'Matzilin' - because that is when they are written with ink which lasts, but not when they are written with paint, when they will soon become erased.

(b)The Resh Galusa objected to Rabah bar Rav Huna's ruling 'Ein Matzilin' on the basis of a statement by Rav Hamnuna - who cited a Beraisa which specifically states 'Matzilin'.

(c)Rabah bar Rav Huna's reaction to that was - 'I Tanya, Tanya' (if it is a Beraisa, then there is nothing more to discuss).

(d)Rav Ashi cites the Beraisa to which the Resh Galusa referred, which requires a Megilah to be written in Ashuris, on a scroll and with ink before one may save it from a fire, from which we can extrapolate - that other Sefarim - which can be written with any kind of paint or dye (see Tosfos DH 'Aval Hacha').

(e)This proves - that one may save a Sefer even if it is not written with ink.

12)

(a)Rav Huna bar Chaluv asked Rav Nachman whether one may save a Sefer-Torah with less than eighty-five letters from a fire on Shabbos. The significance of eighty-five letters - is that it corresponds to the Parshah of "Vayehi bi'Neso'a ha'Aron", which is an independent Sefer.

(b)He did he not ask what the Din will be if Parshah "Vayehi bi'Neso'a ha'Aron" itself is missing a letter - because since it contains Names of Hash-m, it is obvious that one may save it irrespective of how few letters remain (whereas Rav Huna bar Chaluv's She'eilah referred to a Parshah which does contain any Name of Hash-m).

(c)To which Rav Nachman replied - 'Ein Matzilin'.

13)

(a)We query Rav Nachman however, from a Beraisa, which permits saving Targum which was written Mikra and vice-versa, as well as K'sav Ivris - which is the script of the Ivrim, who lived on the other side of the River Euphrates (whereas our Sefarim are written in K'sav Ashuris).

(b)The Tana also permits saving the Targum in Ezra, Daniel and in the Torah.

(c)The Targum in the Torah refers to the Pasuk in Vayeitzei (in connection with the pile of stones erected by Ya'akov and Lavan) "Yegar Sahadusa" ...

(d)... even though it comprises less than eighty-five letters - a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who just ruled 'Ein Matzilin'.

(e)To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Nachman - we establish it where there are eighty-five letters including "Yegar Sahadusa".

14)

(a)We ask whether the eighty-five letters that permit a Sefer-Torah are Mechunasos - consecutive, or Mefuzaros - scattered.

(b)Rav Huna says that they must be Mechunasos - Rav Chisda permits them to be scattered.

(c)We query Rav Huna from the Beraisa, which, discussing a Sefer-Torah that has withered, rules 'Im Yesh bah Lelaket Shemonim-ve'Chamesh Osiyos K'gon Vayehi bi'Neso'a ha'Aron ... ", Matzilin'. The word 'Lelaket' implies that the letters are scattered, a Kashya on Rav Huna.

(d)To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, Rav Chisda explains - that when the Tana mentions gathering the letters, he is referring to gathering complete words (even if they are scattered); whereas Rav Huna, who requires consecutive letters, is referring to independent letters that are not parts of whole words.