Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 22

they must nevertheless be saved. How, then, can R. Huna say, that the non-readable need not be saved?" R. Huna might say: How can this explanation of the Mishna correspond with the further ordinance that they " should be brought to a safe 239 240 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. place " ? If it says that they must be saved from the conflagra- tion, it is self-evident that they must be brought to a safe place ? What is the correct interpretation of the Mishna ? R. Huna interprets it according to his understanding thus: " The read- able part of the Scriptures is the Prophets, the non-readable part is the Hagiographa, providing they are written in the holy language (Hebrew), but if written in other languages they need not be saved; but although they need not be saved on the Sab- bath, if they lie in an unfit place even on week-days, they must be brought into a safe place." R. Hisda interprets the Mishna according to his understanding thus: " The readable part is the Prophets, the non-readable part is the Hagiographa, and al- though written in other languages they must also be saved, and the term ' should be brought to a safe place * refers even to torn pieces of such Scriptures although written in other languages." Another objection was made : We have learned in a Bora- itha: " If they (the Scriptures) are written in Aramaic or any other language, they must be saved from a conflagration ? Is this not contradictory to R. Huna's opinion ? Nay; R. Huna may say that the Tana of the Boraitha holds the Scriptures writ- ten in other languages to be readable. Come and hear: Scrip- tures written in Coptic, Median, old Hebrew, Elamite or Greek, although not permitted to be read, must be saved from a con- flagration." This is surely a contradiction to R. Huna? R. Huna might say: There is a diiTerence of opinion among the different Tanaim, as we have learned in the following Tosephta: If the Scriptures are written in Aramaic or in any other lan- guage, they must be saved from a conflagration, but R. Jose says, that they must not. Said R. Jose: It happened that Aba 'Halafta went to R. Gamaliel the Great in Tiberias, who sat at the table of Johanan the Nazuph (also called Ben Nazuph), and held in his hand the book of Job in Aramaic, which he was read- ing. Said Aba 'Halafta to R. Gamaliel: " I remember having at one time come to thy grandfather R. Gamaliel, who stood on the steps of the corridor of the Temple when a Book of Job in Aramaic wa§ brought to him. He told the mason to take the book and immure it underneath the stairway." Whereupon the later R. Gamaliel also ordered the book he was reading to be immured. The rabbis taught : The benedictions, which are written in Hebrew, or amulets although containing letters of the Holy Name and many passages of the Scriptures, must not be saved TRACT SABBATH. 241 from a conflagration, but may be burned up together with such letters and passages. From this it was said, that one who writes benedictions commits an act equal to burning up the Scriptures, as it happened in Zidon : One wrote benedictions, and it was told to R. Ishmael. R. Ishmael set forth to investigate the matter. As soon as the man saw R. Ishmael approach, he threw the writings into a bowl of water. Said R. Ishmael to him the following words: " The punishment thou wilt receive for this latter deed will be greater than that for writing the benedictions." The Exilarch asked of Rabba bar R. Huna: If the Scriptures were written with paint or with dyes and in the holy language, may they be saved from a conflagration or not ? I ask thee, taking in consideration the differences of opinion existing between the different Tanaim, for those who hold that Scriptures written in Aramaic or any other language must not be saved, what is their opinion regarding such as are written in the holy language and not with ink ? Whereas those who hold that the Scriptures in any language must be saved, do they not refer to such as are written in ink only, but those written with paint or dye, even if written in Hebrew, should also not be saved ? Answered Rabba bar R. Huna: " No, they must not be saved." Rejoined the Exilarch : " R. Hamnuna taught, in a Boraitha, that they may ? " Answered Rabba: " If such was taught in a Boraitha, it must be so! " The rabbis taught : Before the passage [Numb, x. 35] : " And it came to pass when the ark set forward, that Moses said, etc," and at the close of the next verse, the Holy One, blessed be He, made signs (the inverted letter Nun, which must be inserted in the Scroll) in order to signify that this is not the proper place for the two passages ; but Rabbi says, that this is out of the question, and that the two verses form a valuable book in themselves. We have heard from R. Samuel ben Na'h- meni in the name of R. Jonathan, that we have not a Penta- teuch but a Septateuch* {i.e., we have not five books of Moses, but seven). Would this imply that R. Samuel holds with Rabbi and declares that there are seven (because the two verses, which form a book in themselves, divide Numbers into two books)? Who is the Tana, however, that differs with Rabbi? He is R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, for we have learned in a Bora- * In the Hebrew introduction to Tract Rosh Hashana this entire argument is explained, and we do not deem it advisable to translate it at present. 242 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. itha: R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says, that these two passages will in the future be removed and put in their proper place. Why- were they put here, then ? In order to make a separation between the two scourges that befell the Israelites. Which was the second scourge ? The one that follows immediately afterwards [Numb. xi. i] : "And it came to pass, that, as the people complained in a manner displeasing to the Lord," etc., etc. And which was the first? The first was as it is written [ibid. X. 33]: " And they set forward from the mount of the Lord," which, according to R. Hama b. Hanina, means "and they departed from the ways of the Lord. ' ' Which is the proper place for the two passages ? Said R. Ashi : In Numbers ii. (where it is decreed how every man should walk in the wilderness, and the end of the chapter stating that every man did as he was com- manded, should be followed by those two verses). The schoolmen asked : May the blank pieces of the Scroll of Laws which had become detached from the Scroll be saved from a conflagration on Sabbath or not ? Come and hear: The Gilyonim (blank pieces of the Scroll) and the Sadducean books need not be saved from the conflagration. They, together with the holy names contained in them. Does not the word Gil- yonim have reference to the blank pieces of the Scroll ? Nay; the blank pages of the Sadducean books. How can it mean the