Why may one break open nuts and pomegranates after Minchah, due to Inuy?

Rashi: These are Shevus - the Torah does not forbid them. Chachamim permitted them, for he prepares the food and does not eat - this is like Inuy. It is permitted only after Minchah, for he looks forward to eating, and there is more agony.

Ha'Boneh: We infer (a) The Ta'anis must be Inuy Nefesh - he must suppress his desires from what he is used to. "Ha'Lo Zeh Tzom Evcharehu Pate'ach Chartzubos Resha", "Yom Anos Adam Nafsho." (NOTE: Hash-m does not desire "Yom Anos Adam Nafsho" (Yeshayah 58:5)! This requires investigation. - PF) He senses the quality of the food, and desires it, and pains himself to refrain due to Hash-m's command. (b) The primary fast is from Minchah and onwards, when he is greatly pained. This shows that Minchah and Ne'ilah are very important on Yom Kipur. (c) If one warns his household to refrain from sin, and they do not heed him, he should tell them in the name of a Gadol, like Rav Yehudah and Rava did. (NOTE: The text in Ein Yakov 'they saw' implies that both of them said so. Our text says that only Rabah did so. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Acharonim infer from here that one should not eat things or take pills on Erev Yom Kipur to make the fast easier, for the Torah wants affliction! This is according to Rashi. Other Rishonim explain differently.

Rav Elyashiv: All the [other] Rishonim explain that because one is pained due to the fast, Chachamim permitted to prepare food, so they will be able to eat immediately [at night]. It is forbidden before Minchah, lest he come to eat. (We are not concerned after Minchah, for he knows that soon he may eat.)

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Ramban and Rashba say that before Minchah, it looks like he prepares for Yom Kipur itself.

Why did he tell to them that a letter came from Eretz Yisrael saying that R. Yochanan forbids?

Rashi: It was so they would accept it, and cease to do so.

Rav Elyashiv: Telling them falsely in the name of a Gadol is like the Heter to deviate for the sake of Shalom. It is permitted only if needed to prevent transgression. This is fine according to Ba'al ha'Ma'or, who explains that we are concerned lest they eat, a Torah Isur. According to Rashi, the concern is only for an Isur mid'Rabanan - why did they nullify the entire Heter of preparing vegetables? (NOTE: According to Rashi, the Heter was merely to increase Inuy. It is reasonable to nullify this if there is concern for an Isur mid'Rabanan! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Beis Aharon (3, p.427) asked how Rabah could lie. R. Yochanan permits even when Yom Kipur is on Shabbos [according to some texts]! I say that he did not lie. R. Yochanan permits only after Minchah. 'Igreta' need not mean a letter - it can mean the one who said a matter, e.g. 'the one who read the Igreta, he should be the Shali'ach to carry it out' (Sanhedrin 82a)! (NOTE: Pinchas said the Halachah. He did not read a letter! - PF)

Why does the Mishnah say 'all Kisvei ha'Kodesh'?

Rashi: This encompasses Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim. Do not say that one may save only Torah.

Tosfos: We discuss a fire in the same house as the Kisvei ha'Kodesh. He is frantic - if we permit [too much], he will come to extinguish. If the fire is in another house, he may save everything.

Rav Elyashiv: To save Kisvei ha'Kodesh from burning, one may save as much as he can, and even without an Eruv. Chachamim limited how much food and garments one may save, even though they are Heter, and one may save only within an Eruv.

How may one save them?

Rashi: He may toil, and take them to a Mavuy not open on both sides, even though there is no Eruv.

Which Seforim may one not read?

Rashi: We read Nevi'im, i.e. the Haftorah, on Shabbos. We do not read Kesuvim.

Daf Al ha'Daf: On Shabbos and Yom Tov we say in the additions after Birkas ha'Mazon 'Migdol', and not Magdil. Iyun Tefilah says, the Vilna Gaon says that this is because we do not read Kesuvim on Shabbos. In Tehilim 18 it says Magdil; in Shmuel II (Nevi'im), it says Migdol. I do not understand. We say many Tehilim on Shabbos. Pesukei d'Zimra is mostly verses of Tehilim! Sefer Zechus Avos says that Ba'al ha'Tanya's text in Shabbos Minchah said Mi k'Amecha k'Yisrael, a verse in Shmuel, to avoid the verse in Kesuvim Mi k'Amecha Yisrael. The decree was not to read Kesuvim at the time of Minchah. We say verses of Kesuvim also at Minchah!

Rashi citing Rabbeinu ha'Levi: Even an individual may not read them due to Bitul Beis ha'Midrash, for they draw people's hearts. On Shabbos there was a Drashah for men who work the entire week - it taught them what is permitted and forbidden. It is better that they hear the Drashah than to read Kesuvim.

Rav Elyashiv: On Leil Yom Kipur they read Kesuvim in front of the Kohen Gadol to keep him awake (Yoma 18b), for it draws the heart. Nowadays there is no Drashah, so the enactment not to read Kesuvim ceased. Why does the Rif forbid? The Vilna Gaon says that enactments of Chazal do not cese even when the reason ceases, but this does not apply here, for it was not an enactment by itself. It was only to prevent Bitul Beis ha'Midrash! Acharonim infer that the custom to read Shir ha'Shirim and Koheles on Shabbos Chol ha'Mo'ed was after the Mishnah. If not, also Kesuvim are read on Shabbos! However, Shir ha'Shirim does not draw the heart. Even if the custom already applied, perhaps other Kesuvim were forbidden! However, Koheles draws the heart, and also Mishlei - the Yerushalmi says that they used to read them to the Kohen Gadol - so we must say that the custom arose later. Even so, it is not difficult for those who bless on the Megilos, just like we bless 'ha'Nosen la'Ya'ef Ko'ach', even though it is not mentioned in the Gemara.

Rav Elyashiv: The Drashah was preferable only because it taught what is permitted and forbidden. If not, there is no preference for Halachos over reading Kesuvim. However, Beis Efrayim (OC 68) infers that if one could learn Talmud and Halachos, and he engages in Kisvei ha'Kodesh, this is Bitul Torah (even if he learns them deeply, and not merely reading them. Surely he said so only about Nevi'im and Kesuvim, but not about Chumash, which is the Ikar of Torah.) He came to explain 'we are Mevatel Torah for Keri'as ha'Megilah.' That was not difficult - one is Yotzei Keri'as ha'Megilah in Leshon ha'Kodesh even if he does not understand at all! David requested that saying Tehilim be like engaging in Nega'im and Ohalos - it is not clear if Hash-m acceded (Nefesh ha'Chayim Sha'ar 4). Perhaps David requested for one who says Tehilim like Shirah, even if he does not understand (NOTE: but he did not need to request for one who learns it, it is like Halachos! - PF) One who learns Kesuvim, surely he fulfills Mitzvas Talmud Torah. However, "v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah" is only if he investigates with all his ability, even if he learns Gemara and Poskim.

What is the Chidush 'even if they are written in another language'?

Rashi: An opinion below forbids reading them. Even so, we save them. My Rebbeyim say, this refers to Kesuvim, but not to Nevi'im. I say that they said so because Yonasan ben Uzi'el translated Nevi'im. I hold that the same applies to Nevi'im. Yonason said the Targum, but it was not given to be written, like it says in Megilah 9a. The one who forbids, he forbids everything, except for Torah in Yevanis, due to the episode with Tolemi (the translation of the 70); he does not distinguish Nevi'im from Kesuvim.

Rav Elyashiv: Nowadays one may write all Seforim in any language (OC 334:12) due to "Es La'asos la'Shem Heferu Sorasecha." Acharonim (Magen Avraham ibid. 17) says that this does not apply if Nochrim print Seforim for themselves; one may not save them from a fire. If a heretic wrote a Sefer Torah, we burn it. However, the printers who print these Seforim do not know anything. I saw Rav Bengis who had a Tanach in which a cross was drawn on the last Kuf of the Torah (ha'Chazakah). He cut it out with a knife and kept the Tanach. R' N. Adler had a great memory, so he never wrote his Chidushim, for there was no concern lest he forget them. However, he could have written them for the sake of others!

What is the consequence of 'they require Genizah'?

Rashi: One may not leave them in a Hefker place.

Rashi writes that Chalafta was R. Yosi's father. Why was he permitted to say his father's name?

R. Akiva Eiger, citing his son Shlomo: Rashi (Sanhedrin 100a) permits saying 'Rebbi v'Mori Ploni', for he puts praise before his Rebbi's name. Also here, he said Aba Chalafta!

Erchei Tana'im v'Amora'im, cited in Kovetz Shitos Kamai: The text says Rebbi Chalafta. (NOTE: Perhaps even if Aba is not considered a title of respect, 'Rebbi' is. It seems that there was more than one Aba Chalafta. It is feasible that R. Yosi's father saw the grandfather (R. Gamliel ha'Zaken) of a Rebbi (R. Gamliel) of his son's Rebbi (R. Akiva). Aba Chalafta Ish Kefar Chananyah was a Talmid of R. Meir (Bava Metzi'a 94a). It is unlikely that one who saw R. Gamliel ha'Zaken was a Talmid of R. Meir, who was four generations later, especially according to the version (in Bava Kama 70a) that R. Yochanan ben Nuri (a colleague of R. Akiva, the Rebbi of R. Meir) went to learn from Aba Chalafta. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Here, he said a Halachah in his name, so it is honorable for his father and a merit, so people will say the Halachah in his name. (NOTE: This answer does not apply In Sanhedrin 80a and Me'ilah 17b, where R. Yosi said 'Aba Chalafta' without citing anything in his name. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv (Bechoros 26a): R. Yosi was more esteemed than his father, therefore it was permitted. Also, perhaps he said only 'Aba', and the Gemara added that his father was Chalafta.

When was the Targum of Sefer Iyov written?

Tosfos: Our Gemara implies that Kesuvim were already translated in the days of the Tana'im. A Beraisa in Megilah (21b) says about Megilah and Hallel, even if 10 read and 10 translate... Even though Yonasan ben Uzi'el did not translate Kesuvim, it was done later in the days of the Tana'im. This is unlike those who say that Rav Yosef translated Kesuvim.

What is Nidbach?

Rashi: It is a row of rocks in a building.

Why may one not save Berachos and Kemi'im? Tosfos (Menachos 31b) says that we may save a Sefer even if it was not written k'Halachah!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Ha'Grid Soloveitchik said that Azkaros do not justify saving them, for it was forbidden to write them. An Azkarah permits saving a Sefer Torah that faded, even if less than 85 letters remain. Rishonim say that nowadays that we permit writing Berachos and Kemi'im, one may save them.

Why is writing Berachos like burning Torah?

Rashi: One may not save them from a fire.

Rav Elyashiv: This is not the Torah Isur of destroying Hash-m's name. It is a very distant Gerama (causation) - perhaps there will be a fire on Shabbos, and he will not be able to save them. Even so, it is forbidden [mid'Rabanan].

Why will he be punished more for putting them in water than for writing them?

Rav Elyashiv: Writing them was only Gerama. Putting them in water is considered erasing, a Torah Isur. Acharonim ask, if Hash-m's name was written on a person, he may immerse normally (120b). We permit only for Tevilas Mitzvah, if he wraps a reed over the name, but he may not bathe. The reed is needed lest he be naked in front of the name; it is not to prevent erasure! This is because entering the water is not sure to erase the name. It is only Gerama. Why is this worse than the Gerama of writing Berachos? He does not immerse in order to erase the name, and it is not sure to erase. The man who submerged the Berachos intended to erase them; it is considered overt erasure, a Torah Isur. (NOTE: One could have explained that he put them in water lest R. Yishmael find them. Rav Elyashiv explains that he feared lest R. Yishmael check what is in the water, and wanted them to be erased. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: Esh Pinchas (p.52) says that Beis Efrayim said, R. Yishmael considers Gerama like action. Rashi (Devarim 12:4) brings from Sifri "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem Elokeichem" - do not do like the Nochrim, and your sins will cause Churban ha'Mikdash. (NOTE: Writing them is not like overtly destroying them, for it is a very distant Gerama. - PF)