Shabbat 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

The tanna taught: If one intended to write only one letter

alone

but two letters emerged from his hand, he is liable.

And we raise an objection:

But didn’t we learn

in the Mishna: If one intended to write the letter het but wrote two zayins,

he is exempt,

because he intended to write only one letter and thus he is a mitasek—one who performed an act without intending to perform the prohibited labor—and is exempt from bringing a sin-offering?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

statement in which it teaches that he is exempt is for another reason:

because the zayins require crowns,

as he did not add crowns to the zayins, and the writing was therefore not yet completed.

This

statement in which it teaches that he is liable is referring to a case

in which the zayins do not require crowns,

as by doing so he completed the entire act of writing.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one wrote one letter

but wrote it in the form of

a notarikon,

in which a single letter represents an entire word.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira holds him liable, and the Sages exempt him.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: From where is it derived that the language of notarikon

is

from the Torah?

As it is stated

concerning Abraham:

“For I have made you a father of a multitude of nations.” The expression “father of a multitude” is a notarikon:

“Father of a multitude” is a word abbreviation:

“I have made you a father to the nations; I have made you distinguished among the nations; I have made you beloved among the nations; I have made you a king to the nations,”

as it is written, “You are a prince of God among us,”

“I have made you an elder among the nations; I have made you trustworthy among the nations.”

Rabbi Yohanan himself said:

From here there is a source for notarikon in the Torah:

“I”

in the Ten Commandments is

a notarikon: “I Myself have written and given.”

That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: “I Myself gave the Torah in written form.”

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said:

This is how we expound it:

“A saying”

that is

pleasant,

that is, the Torah,

“written and given,”

was given in written form.

Some say: “I”

is

a notarikon read in reverse: “given in writing,”

was given in written form—

“Its words are trustworthy.”

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Natan said:

The angel’s words to Balaam are a notarikon, as it is written: “Behold, I have come out as an adversary,

because the way has become contrary to me.”

The word “contrary” is a notarikon:

“She will see”

the she-ass;

“she saw and turned aside,”

because the way is contrary to me! That is, you are going to provoke me.

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is stated concerning the omer offering that it should be

“carmel,”

which is a notarikon:

“a full kerem,”

as it is brought from moist grain, when the kernels are swollen and the “kerem,” the straw, is full of them.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

David said to Solomon concerning Shimei ben Gera:

“He cursed me with a grievous curse,”

which is a notarikon:

“He is an adulterer; he is a Moabite; he is a murderer; he is an enemy; he is an abomination.”

This is how Shimei cursed him.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Judah said to Joseph:

“What can we say, and how can we prove ourselves right?”

This is a notarikon:

“We are upright; we are righteous; we are pure; we are innocent; we are holy.”

Mishna:

If one writes two letters in two periods of unawareness,

meaning that he became aware between writing one letter and writing the other that he had sinned, and then forgot again and sinned.

Or even if it was one period of unawareness, but he wrote one letter

in the morning and one between the evenings,

since he had a lengthy interval between them in which he could have become aware, this is considered two separate periods of unawareness.

Rabban Gamliel holds him liable

for a sin-offering,

and the Sages exempt him.

Gemara:

And we explain:

With regard to what do

the tannaim of the Mishna disagree?

Rabban Gamliel holds: There is no awareness for half a measure.

The awareness between writing one letter and writing the other is not considered “awareness,” since he became aware only of half the measure, and this is not awareness of a transgression that entails bringing a sin-offering. Therefore, it is considered as though he wrote both letters during one period of unawareness, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And the Sages hold: There is awareness for half a measure.

Since it is considered “awareness,” it divides the letters, so that they do not combine into a single unwitting act; rather, they are two unwitting acts, for each of which there is no liability for a complete measure. Therefore, he is exempt from a sin-offering.

We will return to you, chapter: One Who Builds

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who weaves three threads at the beginning,

at the beginning of weaving the garment,

and one on an existing weave,

or who added one thread to what had already been woven to a small extent,

is liable,

because it joins the existing weave.

And the Sages say: Whether at the beginning or at the end, its measure —

two threads.

One who makes two heddle-loops, with heddle-loops,

or

with a comb,

or

with a sieve,

or

with a sifter or basket —

is liable.

See the illustration at the end of the book for an explanation of these matters.

And

he is likewise liable for

sewing two stitches.

And

likewise,

one who tears in order to sew two stitches.

Gemara:

When Rabbi Yitzḥak came, he taught

in our Mishna: One who weaves

two

threads is liable.

And we raised a difficulty:

But we learned in the Mishna three!

And we answered:

It is not difficult; this —

refers to thick threads, and this —

to thin ones.

The amoraim disagreed in explaining this answer:

Some say

that they explained it

in this direction, and some say in that direction.

Some say in this direction:

Threads that are

thick:

only if they are

three

rows

do not come apart;

their weave does not unravel. But

two

rows

do come apart,

the weave does not hold. But threads that are

thin —

even two do not come apart.

And some say in this direction:

Threads that are

thin: three —

are recognizable;

only three threads are visibly considered a weave, and their weaving is thereby considered a labor. But a weave of

two

thin, delicate threads

is not recognizable;

their weaving is not visible. But threads that are

thick —

even two are recognizable.

It was taught in a beraita: One who weaves

passing between the warp threads

three threads

of woof, and this was

at the beginning

of weaving the fabric or garment, and by weaving the three woof threads the weave holds and does not come apart,

and

likewise one who weaves

one

thread as an addition

to an existing weave

—

is liable!

And the Sages say:

One who weaves,

whether at the beginning

of the weaving,

or at the end,

adding to an existing weave,

their measure is —

two threads.

And

in weaving a

border

around a fabric, which is woven with a warp thread made of a different type, [and the width of the border is equivalent to the measure of three heddle-loops], if he wove in the border

two threads across the width of three heddle-loops,

which is the width of the border, he is liable, although he did not weave here the full width of a sit, which is the measure for weaving.

The beraita explains why, in weaving the border, one is liable for such a narrow measure:

To what

does this weaver

resemble?

To one who weaves

a

small tzitzit [

a narrow belt]

two threads across the width of three heddle-loops,

for he is liable, because this is the entire width of the tzitzit.

The Gemara now notes that in this beraita we have just learned, the view of Rabbi Eliezer [who distinguishes between the beginning of weaving and weaving onto an existing weave] is presented anonymously, without his name being mentioned, whereas in another beraita the tanna presents the words of the Rabbis anonymously, and, conversely, mentions Rabbi Eliezer’s view by name.

The Gemara first infers from this beraita that the anonymous words of the first tanna are Rabbi Eliezer’s view, without his name being mentioned:

One who weaves three threads at the beginning or one onto an existing weave is liable.

And we infer: The words of the first tanna, which were taught anonymously, are

according to Rabbi Eliezer

in our Mishna, who holds this view.

It was taught in another beraita: One who weaves two threads onto

the

coarse weave,

of which much has already been woven, and likewise one who weaves two threads

onto the hem,

which is a form of weaving around the garment with a woof thread made of another type —

is liable.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

one who weaves

one

thread as an addition to an existing weave is liable.

The Sages add and say:

And

one who weaves

in the border

of the garment

two threads across the width of three heddle-loops —

is liable.

To what does this resemble?

To one who weaves

a

small tzitzit: two threads across the width of three heddle-loops.

And one who weaves two threads onto the coarse weave or onto the hem is liable.

And we infer: In this beraita the words of the first tanna were taught

anonymously,

without a name —

according to the Rabbis,

who hold that in every case one is liable only for weaving two threads.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who makes two heddle-loops —

with heddle-loops!

We raised a difficulty: The Mishna is discussing the definition of the labor of making two heddle-loops during weaving, and not describing the construction of the weaving machine. Nor does the Mishna mean that one is liable for installing the heddle-loops themselves in the heddle-loops.

Yet passing the warp threads through the heddle-loops is called “making two heddle-loops.”

Therefore, the Gemara asks:

What

act of making two heddle-loops is there

with “heddle-loops”!

That is, what labor is performed with the heddle-loops themselves besides passing the threads through the heddle-loops, and what does the tanna mean by saying, “One who makes two heddle-loops — with heddle-loops!”?

Abaye said:

The tanna means an act of weaving performed with the heddle-loops themselves [besides the weaving involved in passing the threads through the heddle-loops]:

There is a form of weaving [and this is customary in weaving wool garments] in which

two

threads are passed

through

from within the

heddle [

a heddle-loop] one. [This is the version of the Bach.]

After the two threads have been passed through the heddle-loop,

one

additional thread is passed

through the heddle —

between the vertical threads of the heddle [on which the heddle-loops are suspended].

The Penei Shabbat writes, and the tanna in our Mishna means to teach that besides making two heddle-loops in the ordinary manner, namely, passing two threads through two heddle-loops, there is also another form: passing a doubled thread through one heddle-loop, while simultaneously passing a third thread through the heddle itself [and not through a second heddle-loop], between the threads of the heddle.

Although in this labor he does not pass the threads between two heddle-loops, it is nevertheless considered a derivative of the primary labor of making two heddle-loops.

We learned further in the Mishna:

And

one who makes two heddle-loops

with a comb.

We raised a difficulty:

What act of “making two heddle-loops” is there

with a comb,

which is merely a comb with which one beats the woof thread so that it will become tight in the weave?!

The Gemara explains:

Rav said:

The tanna means a comb that is

a metzivuta.

This comb is a board with thin strips through which all the warp threads are passed, and it tightens the woof threads.

Passing two warp threads through the comb is likewise considered a derivative of the labor of making two heddle-loops, although the comb has no heddle-loops, but only thin strips through which the threads are passed.

The explanation of this sugya was arranged according to the book Ma'aseh Oreg. See there, at the end of the book, where it brings five approaches of the early authorities in explaining Abaye’s words.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who sews two stitches.

We raised a difficulty:

We already learned this

earlier [on page 73a],

in

the Mishna listing all the

primary labors: “And one who sews

two stitches.”

Why, then, did the tanna repeat it here?

Granted, the other labors taught in the Mishna contain additional information compared with the earlier Mishna. But here nothing has been added to what was stated above.

And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach

in the

conclusion

of the Mishna:

“And one who tears in order to sew two stitches.”

Therefore,

he also teaches, “One who sews

two stitches.”

And we challenge this:

“And one who tears” —

this too was taught

in the Mishna of the

primary labors?

And we answer:

Rather, because he wanted to teach in the conclusion [

on the next page]

“One who tears in his anger or for his dead”; therefore he teaches, “One who sews two stitches.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who tears in order to sew two stitches.

We raised a difficulty:

How can you find

a case in which the tearing is for the purpose of sewing?