Shabbat 105a — the Talmud in English

The tannai taught: He intended to write one letter

only

but two came into his hand; he is liable.

And we raise an objection:

But did we not learn

in the Mishna: He intended to write a chet and wrote two zayins,

he is exempt,

because he intended to write only one letter, and it is mitasek, for which one is exempt from a sacrifice?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This

that it teaches “he is exempt” is for another reason, because

it requires ziyun,

that he did not place tags on the zayins, and the work of writing was not yet completed.

This

that it teaches “he is liable” is speaking

where it does not require ziyun,

for by this he completed the entire writing.

We learned in the Mishna:

He wrote one letter

but wrote it in the form of

a noterikon,

in which one letter indicates an entire word.

Rabbi Joshua 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 a noterikon is

that it is

from the Torah?

For it is stated

concerning Abraham:

“For I have made you a father of a multitude of nations.” “Father of a multitude” is a noterikon:

“Father I have made you to the nations; chosen one I have made you among the nations; beloved multitude I have made you among the nations; king I have made you to the nations”

[as it is written, “You are a prince of God among us”], and veteran I have made you among the nations; trusted one I have made you among the nations.

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

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

Rabbi Yohanan himself said:

From here it is derived that noterikon is from the Torah:

“I.”

which is in the Ten Commandments, is

a noterikon: “I myself have written and given.”

For the Holy One, blessed is He, says: I myself gave the Torah in writing.

The Rabbis say:

This is how we expound it:

“Utterance”

that is

pleasant,

namely, the Torah—

“writing given,”

was given in writing.

Some say: “I”

is a noterikon

in reverse order: “given writing,”

was given in writing—

“Its utterances are trustworthy.”

The school of Rabbi Natan says:

The words of the angel to Balaam are a noterikon, as it is written: “Behold, I have come out as an adversary—

because the way has been reckless before me.” “Reckless” is the language of a noterikon:

“It saw”

the she-donkey,

“she saw, she turned,”

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

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

It is said concerning the omer offering that it shall be

“karmel,”

which is a noterikon:

“a full heap,”

for it is brought from moist grain, when the seed is swollen, and the kar, the straw, is full of it.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

David said to Solomon concerning Shimei son of Gera:

“And he cursed me with a very bitter curse,”

which is a noterikon:

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

For this is how Shimei cursed him.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Judah said to Joseph:

“What can we say, and how can we justify ourselves?”

in the language of a noterikon:

“We are correct; we are righteous; we are pure; we are clean; we are holy.”

Mishna:

One who writes two letters in two periods of unawareness,

for he became aware between one letter and the other that he had sinned, and then again forgot 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 much time in between in order to become aware, this is considered two separate periods of unawareness [see Tosafot, s.v. “And the Sages”].

because since there was a long interval during which he could have become aware, this is considered two separate periods of unawareness [see Tosafot, s.v. “And the Sages”].

Rabban Gamliel holds him liable

for a sin-offering,

and the Sages exempt him.

Gemara:

And we explain:

Over what do

the tannaim of the Mishna disagree?

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

For the awareness between one letter and the other is not considered “awareness,” since he became aware only of half a measure, which is not awareness of a transgression that obligates a sacrifice. Therefore, it is considered as though he wrote the two letters during one period of unawareness, and he is liable for a sin-offering.

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

And since it is considered “awareness,” it separates the letters, so that they do not join together as one inadvertent act, but are two inadvertent acts, for neither one is there liability for a measure; therefore, he is exempt from a sin-offering.

We have returned to you, chapter “The Builder.”

Mishna:

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

at the beginning of his weaving of the garment,

and one upon the woven fabric,

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

is liable,

because it joins with the existing woven fabric.

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

two threads.

One who makes two heddle openings, in heddles,

or

with a comb,

or

with a sieve,

or

with a sifter and a 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 Yitzhak came, he taught

in our Mishna: One who weaves

two

threads is liable.

And we raised it:

But we learned: three!

And we answer:

It is not difficult; this —

with thick ones; this —

with thin ones.

And the amoraim disagreed in explaining this answer:

Some say,

there are those who explained it

in this direction, and some say, in that direction.

Some say in this direction:

threads

that are thick — only if they are

only if they are

three

rows

do not come apart; their weaving does not come apart. But

their weaving remains intact. But

two

rows

do come apart; the weaving does not hold. But threads that are

and the weaving does not hold. But with

thin —

two also do not come apart.

And some say in this direction:

threads that are

thin, three —

are discernible; only three threads are visible to the eye as a woven fabric, and through this their weaving is considered a labor. But a woven fabric of

recognizable; only three threads are visibly considered a woven fabric, and therefore their weaving is considered a prohibited labor. But a weaving of

two

thin, fine threads

is not discernible; their weaving is not visible. But threads that are

their weaving is not visible. But threads that are

thick —

two also are discernible.

It was taught in a beraita: One who weaves

who passes between the warp threads

three threads

of the woof, and this was

at the beginning

of the weaving of the cloth or garment, and through the weaving of the three woof threads the weaving holds and does not come apart,

and

likewise one who weaves one thread

one

as an addition

upon the woven fabric

that exists —

is liable!

And the Sages say:

one who weaves,

whether at the beginning

of the weaving,

whether at the end,

who adds to an existing woven fabric,

their measure is —

two threads.

And

in weaving a

border

around the woven fabric, which is woven with a warp thread made of a different kind, [and the width of the border is the measure of three heddle openings], if he wove in the border

two threads across the width of three heddle openings,

which is the width of the border, he is liable, despite the fact that he did not weave here the full measure of a span, which is the measure of weaving.

And the beraita explains why in weaving the border one is liable for so limited a measure:

To what

does this weaver

resemble?

To one who weaves

in a

small belt

[a narrow belt]

two threads across the width of three heddle openings,

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

And now the Gemara notes that in this beraita which we have just learned, the view of Rabbi Eliezer [who distinguishes between the beginning of weaving and weaving upon an existing woven fabric] is brought anonymously, without his name being mentioned, whereas in another beraita the tanna states the words of the Sages anonymously, and, on the other hand, mentions the view of Rabbi Eliezer by name.

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

One who weaves three threads at the beginning and one upon the woven fabric is liable.

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

like Rabbi Eliezer

in our Mishna, who holds this view.

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

the woven fabric

that is coarse,

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

upon the hem,

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

is liable.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

one who weaves a

single

thread as an addition to an existing woven fabric is liable.

And the Sages add and say:

And

one who weaves

in the border

of the garment

two threads across the width of three heddle openings —

is liable.

To what does this resemble?

To one who weaves

in a

small belt, two threads across the width of three heddle openings.

And one who weaves two threads upon the coarse fabric and upon the hem is liable.

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

anonymously,

without a name —

like the Rabbis,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

One who makes two heddle openings —

in heddles!

And we raised it: The Mishna is dealing with explaining the labor of making two heddle openings during weaving, and not with describing the construction of the weaving machine; the Mishna did not come to say that one is liable for installing the “heddle openings” themselves in the heddles.

And inserting the warp threads into the heddle openings is called “one who makes two heddle openings.”

Therefore the Gemara asks:

What

making of two heddle openings is there

in “heddles”!

That is, what making of a labor is there in the heddles themselves, apart from inserting the threads into the heddle openings, and what does the tanna mean by saying, “One who makes two heddle openings — in heddles”!

Abaye said:

The tanna’s intention is to the act of weaving that is performed in the heddles themselves [apart from the weaving involved in inserting the threads into the heddle openings]:

There is a form of weaving [and this is customary in weaving woolen garments] in which they pass

two

threads

at once

through one

heddle

[in one heddle opening]. [This is the version of the Bach].

And after inserting the two threads into the heddle opening, they pass

one

additional thread

in the heddle —

between the vertical threads of the heddle [upon which the heddle openings are suspended].

The Penei Shabbat says, and the intention of the tanna in our Mishna is to teach that, apart from making two heddle openings in the ordinary manner, which is inserting two threads through two heddle openings, there is also another form: inserting a doubled thread into one heddle opening, and alongside it passing a third thread through the heddle itself [and not through a second heddle opening], between the threads of the heddle.

And although in this labor he does not pass the threads between two heddle openings, it is nevertheless considered a derivative of the primary labor of making two heddle openings.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And

one who makes two heddle openings

with a comb.

And we raised it:

What labor of “making two heddle openings” is there

with a comb,

which is merely a comb with which they strike the woof thread so that it will tighten into the woven fabric?! And the Gemara explains:

The Gemara explains:

Rav said:

The tanna’s intention is to a comb that is

a matzivuta.

For this comb is a board with thin stripes, through which all the warp threads are threaded, and it tightens the woof threads.

Inserting two warp threads into the comb is also considered a derivative of the labor of making two heddle openings, although in a comb there are no heddle openings, but only thin stripes through which the threads are inserted.

The explanation of this passage was arranged according to the book Maaseh Oreg; see there at the end of the book, where it brought five views of the early authorities in explaining Abaye’s words.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who sews two stitches.

And we raised it:

We already learned this

above [73a],

in

the Mishna of all the

primary labors: “And one who sews

two stitches.”

And why did the tanna repeat and teach it here?

Granted, the other labors taught in the Mishna contain additional matters in comparison with the earlier Mishna. But here nothing was added to what was stated above.

And we answer:

Because he needed to teach

in the

end

of the Mishna:

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

Therefore,

he also taught, “one who sews

two stitches.”

And we object:

“And one who tears” —

this too was already taught in

the Mishna of

the primary labors?

And we answer:

Rather, because he needed to teach at the end

[on the next page]

“one who tears in his anger and over his dead,” therefore he taught, “one who sews two stitches.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who tears in order to sew two stitches.

And we raised it:

How do you find it

that the tearing would be for the purpose of sewing?