Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that this entire chapter is regarding a fire in that house or yard (where the Kisvei ha'Kodesh are). Since the fire is there he is certainly panicked, and if you permit him to save them he will come to put out the fire, as explained by the Gemara. However, if a fire occurs in a different house, he is allowed to save everything.

Observation: Therefore, we are allowed to save our Sefarim because we are allowed to read them due to the Pasuk, "There is a time to do for Hash-m, they went against Your Torah," as stated in Gitin (60a).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who argues in our Mishnah in Megilah (8b) by saying that even Sefarim were not permitted to be written in other languages besides Greek.

Explanation #2: Rav Porat explained that the reasoning is that since they cannot be written down they cannot be read, due to the prohibition that the Written Torah cannot be said by heart.

Question: This is a difficult reason, as this is not the meaning of not being able to say it by heart, since he is not saying it in Hebrew but rather in the language they are written in. One is allowed to say Targum by heart, as we find that Rav Yosef often explained things in Targum (see Tosfos in Bava Kama 3b, DH "k'di'Metargem").

Explanation: The Ri says that this is according to Rebbi Yehudah who forbids other Sefarim to be written in Greek. He only permitted a Sefer Torah to be written in Greek. However, the Rabbanan even permitted other Sefarim to be written in other languages, as explained in Megilah (9a).

Observation: This implies that during the days of the Tanaim there was already a Targum of Kesuvim.

Proof: The Beraisa in Megilah (21b) indeed states that regarding the reading of the Megilah (considered Kesuvim) or Hallel, it is possible to even have ten people reading and ten people translating. This cannot be done when reading the Torah.

Opinion #1: Even though Yonasan ben Uziel did not write it, it was written in the days of the Tanaim.

Opinion #2: This is unlike the opinion that Rav Yosef wrote the Targum of Kesuvim.

Observation: It implies that it is obvious that one cannot read from them. If one could read from them, he could obviously save them, as stated earlier.

Question: The Rashba asks that the Gemara later implies that it was obvious to the Reish Galusa that one could read from them, as he said, "Doesn't the Beraisa say one can save them?" This is the Beraisa quoted as saying that Sefarim can be written in any language, and a Megilah must be written in Ashuris on parchment and with Dyo. However, other Sefarim do not require Dyo! (Why can't one read from them?)

Answer: According to what I will explain later that this Beraisa is solely referring (see (f) in Tosfos DH "Megilah" below) to saving it is understandable, and one indeed cannot read from them.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah in Gitin (19a) says that this is something that lasts, as the Mishnah says, "One can write with everything, with Sam, Dyo, Sikra, Kumus, Kankantum, and with anything that lasts."

Answer: The Ri answers that the Mishnah says this lasts in contrast to liquids and fruit juice, which the second part of the Mishnah there says cannot be used to write. However, it does not last like Dyo.

Question: However, the Ri asks that the Mishnah in Sotah (17b) says regarding a Megilas Sotah that it cannot be written in Kumus or Kankantum, as the Pasuk says, "And he will erase" implying it has to be writing that can be erased. This implies that Kumus and Kankantum last longer than Dyo!

Answer: The Ri answers that they do not last like Dyo, and cannot be erased like Dyo because they become absorbed into the parchment.

Observation: This implies that regarding other Sefarim parchment and Dyo are not required.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara earlier (79b) implies that a Sefer Torah must be written on parchment. This is as the Beraisa states that if it is written on paper or cloth it is invalid. The Gemara (ibid.) understands this is referring to a Sefer Torah.

Question (cont.): The same is true regarding Diftara. Even though it is not mentioned as something that is invalid, it is also not mentioned as something that is valid as it says, "On Klaf and Duchsustus is valid" but it does not mention Diftara.

Question (cont.): Additionally, in Meseches Sofrim (ch.1) it explicitly states that one cannot write on Diftara or erased papyrus.

Question (cont.): Additionally, a Megilah cannot be written on Diftara, as stated in the Mishnah in Megilah (17a). Similarly, a Megilas Sotah cannot be written on Diftara, as stated in Sotah (17b) that it has to be a Sefer. Certainly a Sefer Torah that is very often called a Sefer cannot be written using Diftara!

Question (cont.): Dyo is also needed, as stated earlier (103b) that if it is was not written with Dyo or the names of Hash-m were written with gold, they should be put in Genizah.

Answer: Rav Yosef answered that a Sefer Torah certainly must be written with parchment and Dyo. Our Gemara is discussing other Sefarim.

Implied Question: The Mishnah did not state, "There is no difference between Sefarim and Sefer Torah or Megilah etc." (Why not, as Sefer Torah also has the stringent laws of Megilah?)

Answer: Since a Sefer Torah can be written in other languages, the Mishnah did not put it in the same category as a Megilah.

Question #1: The Ri still asks that in the Mishnah in Megilah (8b) it says that there is no difference between Sefarim and Tefilin or Mezuzos aside from Sefarim being able to be written in any language etc.

Question #1 (cont.): The Gemara asks, can Sefarim indeed be written in any language? Doesn't the Beraisa say that Lashon ha'Kodesh written as Targum, Targum written as Lashon ha'Kodesh, and Ksav Ivri do not cause one's hands to become impure if they handle this Sefer. A Sefer only causes impurity if it is written in Ashuris on parchment and with Dyo.

Question #1 (cont.): The Gemara answers that one is regarding Sefarim and one is regarding Megilah. Rav Ashi answers that the Beraisa is referring to other Sefarim besides Sefer Torah, and is according to Rebbi Yehudah. This implies that Rebbi Yehudah even requires other Sefarim to be written on parchment and with Dyo.

Question #1 (cont.): The Rabbanan must also hold like Rebbi Yehudah in this regard, as we only find the Rabbanan arguing with Rebbi Yehudah regarding Ashuris, not regarding parchment and Dyo.

Question #2: There is also the difficulty that Rav Ashi left the first answer of the Gemara (ibid.) that it is referring to Megilah. This answer is supported by the Beraisa in our Gemara that explicitly states that Megilah must be written in Ashuris with parchment on Dyo. Rav Ashi himself quotes this Beraisa in our Gemara!

Answer: The Ri understands that the Beraisa that says there is no difference between Sefarim and Megilah aside from Sefarim being written in any language, even without parchment and Dyo, is referring to saving those Sefarim from a fire. Even though they cannot be used to read they are saved due to the names of Hash-m contained in those Sefarim. However, we only save a Megilah if it is fit for reading, meaning it has to be written in Ashuris on parchment and with Dyo. This is because it has no names of Hash-m in it.

Question: If so, you should ask from the Beraisa here as it says earlier that whenever one cannot read from it we do not save it!

Answer: We concluded earlier that this is an argument among the Tanaim.

Observation: The Gemara implies that it is asking a question from the term "to gather" that implies even if they are scattered.

Question: This is difficult, as if so, why does the Gemara originally ask if they are gathered or scattered? It is obvious that this is even true if they are scattered, as Rav Huna asks about a Sefer Torah where there is not enough to gather. This implies that if there would be we would save it, even if it was scattered!