Shabbat 103b (קג:) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “one”!

We expound it as though the word “one” had been written without the additional letter mem, teaching that one must perform a complete act of labor in order to be liable for it.

How

are these two teachings, which seemingly contradict one another, to be reconciled?

Rather,

one is not liable until he writes a small name from a larger name.

For example,

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

That is, the partial labor he performed is considered a complete act of labor in another context. Similarly, in weaving one must weave at least two threads, and in making a sieve, two compartments, since with this amount the object is functional, 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 does enough to preserve the object, so that it will not come apart.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he did not write

from a larger name

but only two letters, and they constitute one name,

a doubled letter,

he is liable. For example,

if he wrote

“Shin-shin”

[from “Sheshakh”],

“Tav-tav”

[from “Tit’aru”],

“Resh-resh,” “Gimel-gimel,” or “Het-het.”

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

Rabbi Yosei said: Is he liable because of writing?

Surely he is liable only because of marking! For they would mark the beams of the Tabernacle in order to know which was

its counterpart. Therefore,

even if

he scratched one mark across two boards, or two marks on one board—

he is liable.

Rabbi Shimon says: “And he performs one.” Could it be that he is not liable until he writes the entire name, weaves the entire garment, or makes the entire sieve?

The verse states: “from one.”

If so, “from one” could mean that he is liable even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one thread, or even if he made only one compartment in a sieve?

The verse states: “one.”

How

Rather,

he is not liable until he performs an act of labor whose equivalent is functional

elsewhere. And below the Gemara explains the difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

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

a single sin-offering

for all of them,

even though he performed many acts of labor.

And sometimes he is liable for each and every one

of the acts of labor, with a separate sin-offering. Below, the Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s exposition.

This concludes the language of the beraita.

And we conclude the objection:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita,

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

But in the Mishna Rabbi Yehuda says that he is liable specifically when he writes two letters from two different names.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty:

This

statement of the Mishna

is his own

opinion.

That

statement of the beraita

is that of his teacher

.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Even if he wrote only two letters and they constitute one name, he is liable. For example: “Shin-shin,” “Tav-tav,” “Resh-resh,” “Gimel-gimel,” or “Het-het.”

That is, what Rabbi Yehuda said in the beraita, that one is liable even for a single name, he said in the name of his teacher, Rabban Gamliel. But he himself maintains that one is liable specifically when he writes two letters from two different names, as we said that Rabbi Yehuda states in our Mishna.

The Gemara now returns to explain the dispute between the tannaim in the beraita:

We raise a question:

But Rabbi Shimon,

who said that one who performs part of the labor he intended to perform is liable for it if a similar labor is functional in its own right,

is this not the first tanna [that is, Rabbi Yehuda. Rashi], who said the same thing, namely, that one who writes “shin-shin” from “Sheshakh,” and the like, is liable?

[That is, Rabbi Yehuda. Rashi.]

If so, in what do the first tanna, that is, Rabbi Yehuda [Rashi], and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

And if you would say

that the disagreement concerns one who writes

“alef-alef”

from the word

“a’azrekh,” that is the difference between them.

The first tanna maintains: Writing “alef-alef” from “a’azrekh” does not make one liable,

because we do not find such a word anywhere in the Bible; he is liable specifically for “shin-shin” or “tav-tav,” which is an independent word.

But Rabbi Shimon maintains: Since it exists in ordinary magical writing,

as such things are written in amulets,

he is liable.

That cannot be said.

And is it possible

to say that Rabbi Shimon

maintains

a stringent position

in comparison with the other tannaim?

But it is taught in a beraita: One who drills any amount,

who performs part of the drilling but does not reach through to the other side,

is liable.

And likewise,

one who scrapes

—who rubs the ends of stakes or scrapes the hairs from a hide to prepare parchment, with liability on account of smoothing—the measure for which is any amount.

And likewise,

one who tans

a hide, the measure for which is

any amount.

And likewise,

one who engraves any design on a utensil,

even if he did not complete the entire design.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He is not liable

until he drills the

hole

entirely,

the entire amount he initially intended to do at one time. Similarly, he is not liable for smoothing אלא

until he scrapes the

hide

entirely.

And likewise, with regard to 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 lenient one among the other tannaim! And we answer:

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

one should not say, as does the first tanna, that one is liable for writing a small name from a larger name; rather, he is not liable

until he writes the entire name,

the entire word that he intended to write.

And we challenge this:

Can you really say this?

But it is taught

in the beraita above:

Rabbi Shimon says: “And he performs one”; could it be that

he is liable only

until he writes the entire name?

The verse states: “from one.”

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

And we answer:

Resolve it and say this

in Rabbi Shimon’s statement:

Could it be

that he is liable only

until he writes the entire verse,

when he intended to write a complete verse?

The verse states: “from one,”

meaning that it is sufficient for him to write one complete word from the entire verse.

We learned further in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: “And he performs one,” “and he performs from them.” Sometimes he is liable for one offering 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 for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion?

That is, how does he expound the verse in this manner? The verse could have written

“one”

but it wrote

“from one”;

and likewise, it could have written

“them”

but it wrote

“from them,”

with the mem being superfluous in both instances.

First, we expound the verse without the mem: Sometimes one performs

“one”

act alone

which is “them,”

for which he is liable to bring many offerings.

And

sometimes he performs

“them,”

many acts of transgression,

which is “one,”

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

[And this is the meaning of the verse: “And he performs one”: his act is considered “one” with regard to the sin-offering, even though “they”—many transgressions—were performed], as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Now he expounds the superfluous mem: Had it been written

“one,”

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

“Shimon,”

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

“from one,”

to teach you that even if he wrote

“Shem” from “Shimon,”

he is liable.

And he expounds the superfluous mem of “from them” as follows:

“Them”

would imply only

“primary categories.”

“From them”

includes

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

And

“one which is ‘them,’”

as we said above, refers to one who performed many acts of labor in

willful awareness of Shabbat,

knowing that the day was Shabbat,

but unwittingness with regard to the acts of labor,

having forgotten that these acts of labor were prohibited. Therefore, he must bring a separate sin-offering for each and every act of labor, even though all of them constitute one transgression of violating Shabbat, because there are many acts of unwittingness here.

“Them which is ‘one’”: When there is unwittingness with regard to Shabbat,

having forgotten that the day was Shabbat,

but willful awareness with regard to the acts of labor,

knowing that these acts of labor were prohibited, he brings one sin-offering for all of them despite having performed many acts of labor, because there is only one unwitting act here: his forgetting that it was Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: We find a name

[a word]

smaller than a larger name,

“Shem” from “Shimon.”

We raise a question:

Are they comparable?

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

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 a word. This person, who intended to write “Shimon,” wrote “shim” with an open mem, which is not a word elsewhere. Why, then, is he liable? This is not an act of labor whose equivalent is functional elsewhere!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said: This teaches

that a letter which should be written

“closed”

as it is at the end of a word,

but he made it open,

is valid

when writing a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzot. Therefore, when he wrote “shim,” it is as though “Shem” had been written; there is no difference between them.

Meytivi:

It is taught in a beraita: With regard to writing a mezuzah,

“And you shall write them”

is stated, and we expound:

the writing must be complete,

complete in accordance with halakha.

One should not

write in place of

alephs

ayins,

or in place of

ayins

alephs.

For there are people who confuse them in writing because they are similar in pronunciation.

Betin—

kafin; kafin—

betin,

as they too resemble one another in writing.

Gimelin—

tzadin; tzadin—gimelin,

as they too resemble one another in writing: in one, the leg extends upward, and in the other, downward.

Daletin—

Dalet forms—

reishin; reishin—

daletin. Heihin—

hetin; hetin—

heihin. Vavin—

yudin; yudin—

vavin. Zayinin—

nunin

[final nun];

nunin—

zayinin. Tetin—

pepin; pepin—

tetin. Bent letters

such as kaf, peh, tzadi, or nun in the middle of a word should not be written as

straight letters

like a final letter; straight letters—

bent letters. Memin—

samekhin; samekhin—

memin. Closed letters

a closed mem—

open letters

an open mem;

open letters—

closed letters.

An open section should not be made closed, nor a closed section open

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

If one wrote it

for a Torah scroll

in

the format used for writing

poetry,

as one writes the Song at the Sea and all the other songs in the Torah [where the writing on the upper line corresponds to the blank space on the lower line, like “a brick upon a brick”].

Or if he wrote the song—

in the format of

ordinary Torah-scroll writing.

Or if he wrote without ink,

which is fit for writing a Torah scroll,

or if he wrote the names

the sacred names

in gold—

these must be hidden away.

Thus, changing a closed letter to an open one invalidates the writing even after the fact?! [The phrase “these must be hidden away” refers to the entire beraita, Ritva].

And we answer: Rav Hisda

was stating the opinion of this tanna.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: It is stated concerning the

daily offerings

of the second

day of the festival of Sukkot:

“And their libations,”

where the letter mem is superfluous, since it could have written “and its libation,” as on the other days. And on the

sixth

day it states

“and its libation,”

with the yod being superfluous.

And on the seventh

day it states

“according to their law,”

with the mem being superfluous, since it could have written “according to their law” without the additional mem.

Here we have a mem, a yod, and a mem—

water.

From here: a hint to the water libation from the Torah!

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

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

is said to be valid when

made open—

valid.

And we reject this:

Are they comparable?