Shabbat 103b — the Talmud in English

The verse says “one”!

And we expound it as though the word “one” had been written without the addition of the letter mem, to teach that one must perform an entire labor in order to become liable for it.

How

shall the two teachings, which apparently contradict one another, coexist?

Rather,

he is not liable until he writes a small name from a large name.

For example,

“Shem” from “Shimon” and from “Shemuel”; “Noah” from “Nahor”; “Dan” from “Daniel”; “Gad” from “Gadiel.”

For the partial labor that he performed is considered a complete labor in another context. Similarly, in the case of a garment, he must weave at least two threads, and in the case of a sieve, two meshes, since in this manner it endures, and that is sufficient to make him liable. For a person does not weave an entire garment or make an entire sieve in one day; rather, he begins and makes it sufficiently for the thing to endure, so that it will not come apart.

Rabbi Judah says: Even if he did not write

from a large name

but only two letters, and they are one name,

a doubled letter,

he is liable. For example,

if he wrote

“shin-shin”

[from “Sheshakh”],

“tav-tav”

[from “Titra’u”],

“resh-resh,” “gimel-gimel,” “het-het.”

[And all the more so if he initially intended to write only a small word, in which case he is liable even from one name.]

Rabbi Yosei said: Is he liable on account of writing?

But he is liable only on account of making a mark! For they would mark the boards of the Tabernacle in order to know which was

its partner. Therefore,

even if

he inscribed one mark on two boards, or two marks on one board

he is liable.

Rabbi Shimon says: “And he performs one.” One might have thought that he is not liable until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve?

The verse says “from one.”

If [it says] “from one,” one might have thought that even if he wrote only one letter, and even if he wove only one thread, and even if he made only one mesh in a sieve?

The verse says “one.”

How

Rather,

he is not liable until he performs a labor like one that endures

in another context. And below it explains what the difference is between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yosei says: “And he performs one,” “and he performs these.” Sometimes he is liable for

a sin-offering

one for all of them,

even though he performed many labors.

And sometimes he is liable for each and every one

of the labors, a separate sin-offering. And below the Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s exposition.

This is the wording of the baraita up to this point.

And we conclude the challenge:

In any event, it teaches

in the baraita,

“Rabbi Judah says: Even if he wrote only two letters, and they are one name, he is liable.”

Whereas in the Mishna Rabbi Judah says that he is liable specifically when he writes two letters from two names?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This

of the Mishna,

is his own

opinion.

This

of the baraita,

is that of his teacher.

He

as it is taught: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabban Gamaliel: Even if he wrote only two letters, and they are one name, he is liable. For example: “shin-shin,” “tav-tav,” “resh-resh,” “gimel-gimel,” “het-het.”

That is, what Rabbi Judah said in the baraita, that one is liable even for one name, he said in the name of his teacher, Rabban Gamaliel. But he himself holds that one is liable specifically when one writes two letters from two names, as we said in our Mishna in the name of Rabbi Judah.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the dispute of the tannaim in the baraita:

And we raise a question:

And Rabbi Shimon

who said that one who performs part of the labor from among the labor he intended to perform is liable for it if a labor like it endures independently,

is identical to the first tanna

[that is, Rabbi Judah. Rashi], who said so, for one who writes “shin-shin” from “Sheshakh,” and the like, is liable.

If so, in what do the first tanna, that is, Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

And if you would say

when he wrote

“alef-alef”

from the word

“Aazrekh”—that is where they differ.

For the first tanna holds: One is not liable for “alef-alef” of “Aazrekh,”

because we do not find such a word anywhere in all of Scripture; rather, he is liable specifically for “shin-shin” or “tav-tav,” which is a word in its own right.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: Since it exists in mere magical formulas,

which are written in amulets,

he is liable.

It is impossible to say this.

And is it possible

to say that Rabbi Shimon

holds

more stringently

than the other tannaim?

But it is taught: One who drills any amount,

who made part of a hole but did not reach the other side,

is liable.

And likewise,

one who scrapes,

who rubs the ends of poles or scrapes the hairs of a hide in order to make parchment, and whose liability is on account of smoothing, its measure is any amount.

And likewise,

one who tans

the hide, its measure is

any amount.

And likewise,

one who engraves any design on a vessel,

even if he did not complete the entire design.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is not liable

until he drills

the hole

entirely,

all that he intended to do initially at one time. And likewise he is not liable for smoothing אלא

until he scrapes

the hide

entirely.

And likewise for tanning a hide,

until he tans it entirely,

and likewise one who engraves a design is liable only

until he engraves it entirely.

Thus Rabbi Shimon is the one who is lenient in comparison with the other tannaim! And we answer:

Rather, what Rabbi Shimon came to teach us is this:

that one should not say like the first tanna, who makes one liable for writing a small name from a large name; rather, he is not liable

until he writes the entire name,

the entire word that he intended to write.

And we challenge:

Can you really say this?

But it is taught

in the baraita above:

Rabbi Shimon says: “And he performs one”—one might have thought

that he is liable only

until he writes the entire name?

The verse says “from one.”

It follows that Rabbi Shimon makes one liable even for writing part of the word.

And we answer:

Explain it and say this

in Rabbi Shimon’s statement:

One might have thought

that he is liable only

until he writes the entire verse,

when he intended to write an entire verse?

The verse says “from one,”

for it is sufficient that he write one complete word from the entire verse.

We learned further in the baraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: “And he performs one,” “and he performs these.” Sometimes he is liable for one for all of them, and sometimes he is liable for each and every one.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

That is: How does he expound this in this manner? He could have written

“one”

but wrote

“from one,”

and likewise he could have written

“these”

but wrote

“from these,”

and the mem is superfluous in both of them.

Initially we expound it without the mem: Sometimes he performs a transgression

“one”

alone,

which is “these,”

for which he is liable to bring many offerings.

And

sometimes he performs

“these,”

many transgressions,

which is “one,”

for which he is liable for only one sin-offering for all of them.

[And this is the explanation of the verse: “And he performs one”—his performance is considered one for him with regard to the sin-offering, even though “these,” many transgressions, he performed], as it proceeds to explain.

And now he expounds the superfluity of the mem: Had it been written

“one,”

it would have implied that he is not liable until he writes

“Shimon,”

that is, the entire word that he intended to write. Therefore the verse says

“from one,”

to tell you that even if he wrote

“Shem” from “Shimon,”

he is liable.

And the superfluity of the mem in “from these” he expounds as follows:

“These”

implies only

the primary categories. “From these”

comes to include

the derivative categories,

that is, those that emerge from them, from the primary categories [Rashi above, 70b, s.v. “from these”].

And

“one which is ‘these,’”

which we said above, means that he performed many labors in

willful awareness of Shabbat,

that he knew that today was Shabbat,

and unwittingness concerning the labors,

that he forgot that these labors are prohibited; therefore he is liable for a separate sin-offering for each and every labor, although all of them are one transgression of desecrating Shabbat, because there are many unwitting acts here.

“These which is ‘one’: In unwittingness concerning Shabbat,

for he forgot that today was Shabbat,

and willful awareness concerning the labors,

for he knew that these labors are prohibited, he is liable for one sin-offering for all of them despite having transgressed many labors, because there is only one unwitting act here: his forgetting of the day of Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah said: We find a name

[a word]

smaller than a large name,

“Shem” from “Shimon.”

And we raise a question:

Are they comparable?

Is the mem of “Shem” comparable to the mem of “Shimon”? But

the mem of “Shem” is closed

because it is at the end of a word, whereas

the mem of “Shimon” is open

because it is in the middle of the word? And this person, who intended to write “Shimon,” wrote “sh-m” with an open mem, which is not a word anywhere else; so why is he liable? Is this not a labor like one that endures?!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said: This teaches

that a letter which one must write

“closed,”

as is the law at the end of a word,

but he made it open

is valid

in writing a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and mezuzot. Therefore, when he wrote “sh-m,” it is as though he had written “Shem,” for there is no difference between them.

He raises an objection:

It is taught: It is said concerning the writing of a mezuza,

“And you shall write them.”

And we expound:

That the writing must be complete,

complete according to its law.

That he should not

write in place of

alephs

ayins,

and in place of

ayins

alephs.

For there are those who err between them in writing them, because they resemble one another in pronunciation.

Betim—

kafim, kafim—

betim,

for these, too, resemble one another in writing.

Gimelim—

tsadim, tsadim gimelim,

they, too, resemble one another in writing: in one the leg is above, and in the other below.

Daletim—

Dalet forms—

reshim, reshim—

daletim. Heh-im—

hetim, hetim—

heh-im. Vavim—

yodim, yodim—

vavim. Zayinim—

nunim

[final nun]

nunim—

zayinim. Tetim—

pe’im, pe’im—

tetim. Bent letters,

such as kaf, peh, tsadi, and nun in the middle of a word, one should not make

straight letters

like a final letter; straight letters

bent letters. From mem

samekhim, samekhim—

from mem. Closed letters,

a closed mem—

open letters,

an open mem;

open letters

closed letters.

An open section he should not make closed; a closed section he should not make open

[There are two forms of separation between one section and another in the Torah: one is called an open section and one a closed section.]

If he wrote it

for a Torah scroll

in

the writing style of

a song,

as they write the Song at the Sea and all the songs in the Torah [where the writing on the upper line is opposite the gap in the line below it, like “a brick upon a brick”].

Or if he wrote the song

in the manner of it,

in the ordinary writing of a Torah scroll.

Or if he wrote without ink,

which is fit for writing a Torah scroll,

or if he wrote the sacred names

the names

in gold—

these must be placed in storage.

It follows that changing a closed letter into an open one invalidates even after the fact?! [The words “these must be placed in storage” refer to the entire baraita, Ritva.]

And we answer: Rav Hisda

is the one who stated [his view] in accordance with this tanna.

As it is taught: Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: It is said concerning the

day offerings

of the second

day of the festival of Sukkot,

“and their libations,”

with the letter mem being superfluous, for he could have written “and its libation,” as on the other days. And on the

sixth

day it says

“and its libations,”

with the yod being superfluous. And

on the seventh

day it says

“according to their rule,”

with the mem being superfluous, for he could have written “according to their rule.”

Thus: mem, yod, mem

water.

From here, a hint to the libation of water from the Torah!

And since we expound the first mem, which is closed, as though it were open, for we read together with it “water,” learn from this that an open letter made closed is valid.

And since an open letter made closed is valid, a closed letter too

we say:

a closed letter made open

is valid.

And we reject this:

Are they comparable?