Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 17, 2020 | 讻状讛 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Shabbat 103

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Deborah Lewis in honor of Janet Lachais and by Sima Greenberg in memory of Paula Zaager z”l.

Why is one obligated for banging a sledgehammer on the anvil? What is the requisite amount for plowing, weeding, reaping, gathering wood, writing? It depends on what purpose one was doing it. Why is that important – if one weeds for the purposes of using what one weeded and not for benefitting the land, in any case the land benefits and therefore it is a case of a psik reisha (if will definitely happen) and even Rabbi Shimon agrees in this case that one would be obligated, even if one didn’t intend (davar sheaino mitkaven)? The gemara’s answer has important ramifications for understanding Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. The gemara brings various opinions regarding writing on Shabbat. Does one need to write letters or is one also obligated for writing symbols and notations? What if one writes two of the same letter? If one intended to write a word and one stopped after two letters which also form a word, is one obligated? If in the Torah, one was supposed to write a mem in the middle of the word but wrote it as a mem used at the end of words, is that ok? Can one learn that from the sugya of writing on Shabbat?

讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讞专 讞讜专转讗 诇讘谞讬讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讝注讬讛 讘专诪爪讗 讚驻专讝诇讗 讜砖讘拽讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛:


One who drills a hole of any size is liable. Granted, according to Rav, who said that one who makes a hole is liable due to the prohibited labor of building, here too, he should be liable because he appears as one who is making a hole for the purpose of building. However, according to Shmuel, drilling a hole is not a completion of the labor. The labor will be complete only when a stake or pin is inserted into the hole. Until he does so, he cannot be liable for completing the labor. The Gemara answers: With what we are dealing here? With a case where one drilled a hole with an iron nail and left it inside the surface in which he drilled the hole. That is considered a completion of labor because there is no intention to remove the nail from its hole.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇: 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讚讞拽 拽驻讬讝讗 讘拽讘讗:


We learned in the mishna that this is the principle: Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: This is the principle, come to include? The Gemara explains: It comes to include a case where one carved out a vessel with a capacity of half a kav [kefiza] into a piece of wood in which it was possible to chisel a vessel with a capacity of a whole kav. Since this labor endures on Shabbat and it can be used, it is considered a complete labor and he is liable.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讗诪谉 讗转 讬讚讜 拽砖讜 讘讛 讘谞讬 专讞讘讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讝讗 讗讜诪谞转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讙诪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖讻谉 诪专讚讚讬 讟住讬 诪砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 诪专讚讚讬 讟住讬 诪砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉:


We also learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer is liable. The Gemara wonders: What has he done by striking the anvil that would render him liable? It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said in explanation: He is liable because he trains his hand for his work by striking the anvil. The sons of a man named Ra岣va found this answer difficult: If so, one who observed a craft being performed on Shabbat and learned to perform that craft through observation, would he also be liable? Only one who performs an actual labor on Shabbat is liable. Rather, it was Abaye and Rava who both said in explanation: He is liable, as those who flatten plates of metal for the Tabernacle do so. They would strike the anvil with the sledgehammer in order to straighten the sledgehammer鈥檚 handle, which became crooked. That was also taught in a baraita. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor is liable, as those who flatten plates of metal for the Tabernacle do so.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜专砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛诪谞讻砖 讜讛诪拽专住诐 讜讛诪讝专讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诪诇拽讟 注爪讬诐 讗诐 诇转拽谉 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诐 诇讛讬住拽 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛 讛诪诇拽讟 注砖讘讬诐 讗诐 诇转拽谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讻诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讙讚讬:


MISHNA: One who plows is liable for plowing any amount of land on Shabbat. One who weeds and removes grass on Shabbat, and one who removes dry branches and who prunes any amount is liable. With regard to one who gathers wood, if he did so to enhance the tree or the land, he is liable for any amount; if he did so for fuel, he is liable for collecting a measure equivalent to that which is used to cook an easily cooked egg. With regard to one who gathers grass, if he did so to enhance the plants or the land, he is liable for any amount; if he did so to feed an animal, he is liable for collecting a measure equivalent to a goat鈥檚 mouthful.


讙诪壮 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讞讝讬 诇讘讬讝专讗 讚拽专讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 专讗讜讬 诇拽诇讞 讗讞讚 砖诇 住诪谞讬谉:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: For what use is plowing any amount of land suited? The Gemara answers: It is suited for a single pumpkin seed. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was as it is suitable for planting a single stalk of herbs to make dyes.


讛诪谞讻砖 讜讛诪拽专住诐 讜讛诪讝专讚: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讜诇砖 注讜诇砖讬谉 讜讛诪讝专讚 讝专讚讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 讗诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讻诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讙讚讬 讗诐 诇讛讬住拽 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛 讗诐 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛谉


We also learned in the mishna: One who weeds, and one who removes dry branches, and who prunes any amount is liable. The Sages taught that in a baraita: With regard to one who severs endives that grow like weeds, or who prunes reeds [zeradim]; if he did so for human consumption, he is liable in the measure of a fig-bulk; if he did so for animal consumption, he is liable in a measure equivalent to a goat鈥檚 mouthful. If he did so for fuel, he is liable for severing a measure equivalent to that which is used to cook an easily cooked egg. If he did so to enhance the land, he is liable for any amount.


讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讛拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗讙诐 砖谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讚讛 讚诇讗讜 讗讙诐 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 讘讗专注讗 讚讞讘专讬讛:


The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 all these done to enhance the land? Each stalk that a person uproots enhances the land. It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said in explanation: They taught this baraita with regard to swampland, where grass is not uprooted to enhance the land. Abaye said: Even if you say that the baraita is referring to a field that is not a swampland, it can be referring to a case where one did not intend to enhance the land. The Gemara asks: However, is it not Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is liable only for performing an intentional action, concedes that one is liable in a case of cut off its head, will it not die? In any case where the outcome is inevitable, as in this case where the land will be enhanced, one鈥檚 lack of intention does not exempt him. The Gemara answers: Abaye鈥檚 statement was only necessary in a case where one did so on another鈥檚 land. Since he did not intend for that outcome to eventuate and he derives no benefit from enhancing the land, he is not liable in that case.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讘讬谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 讘砖诪讗诇讜 讘讬谉 诪砖诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪砖转讬 砖诪讜转 讘讬谉 诪砖转讬 住诪谞讬讜转 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇 拽专砖讬 讛诪砖讻谉 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讜诪砖诪讜讗诇 谞讞 诪谞讞讜专 讚谉 诪讚谞讬讗诇 讙讚 诪讙讚讬讗诇:


MISHNA: One who writes two letters on Shabbat, whether he did so with his right hand or his left, whether they were the same letter or two different letters, whether he did so using two different types of ink, in any language, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei said: One is deemed liable for writing two letters only due to marking, as they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle to know which beam was another beam鈥檚 counterpart. Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name, e.g., Shem [shin mem] from the name Shimon or from Shmuel; Noa岣 [nun 岣t] from Na岣r; Dan [dalet nun] from Daniel; Gad [gimmel dalet] from Gaddiel. In all of these cases, the first two letters of the longer name constitute the shorter name.


讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬诪讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讗砖诪讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讟专 讬讚 砖谞讜 讜转讛讜讬 砖诪讗诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬诪讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讗砖诪讗诇 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讜诇讟 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the beginning of the mishna: Granted, for writing with the right hand let one be liable, as that is the typical manner of writing. However, for writing with the left hand, why is one liable? That is not the typical manner of writing. Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the mishna taught that one who writes with his left hand is liable, they taught it with regard to one who is left-handed. The Gemara asks: And if so, let his left hand have the same legal status as everyone鈥檚 right hand; for writing with his left hand, let him be liable, for writing with his right hand, let him not be liable. Rather, Abaye said: This mishna refers to an ambidextrous person, who is liable for writing with either hand.


专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗:


Rav Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: One is deemed liable for writing two letters only due to marking. As such, one is liable for writing a letter even if he writes it imprecisely with his left hand. The Gemara asks: From the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the first clause of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara answers: That is not necessarily the case. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and the attribution of his second statement was for emphasis alone.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜: 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name. The Gemara asks: Rather, is that to say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is one who writes two letters that are two different types of letters who is liable; however, one who writes two letters that are one type of letter is not liable?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讻诇 讛砖诐 讜注讚 砖讬讗专讜讙 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 讜注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讻诇 讛谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转


Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淲hen a leader sinned, and he unwittingly performed one of any of the commandments which the Lord his God commanded not to do, and is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22)? The Sages taught: I might have thought that one is not guilty until he performs a complete labor, e.g., until he writes the entire name that he intended to write, or until he weaves the entire garment, or until he crafts the entire sieve made from the reeds of the warp and the woof; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 soul who sins unintentionally in any of the Lord鈥檚 commandments which one shall not perform, and did an action from one of these鈥 (Leviticus 4:2).


讗讬 诪讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诇讗 讗专讙 讗诇讗 讞讜讟 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讘谞驻讛


The emphasis on the phrase 鈥渇rom one鈥 teaches that in order for one to be liable, it is sufficient that he perform only part of the prohibited labor. However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase 鈥渇rom one,鈥 I might have thought that one is liable even if he wrote only a single letter, or even if he wove only a single thread, or even if he crafted only a single eye of the sieve, i.e., arranging the reeds to create a warp, and then interweaving a single reed as a woof;


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讜诪砖诪讜讗诇 谞讞 诪谞讞讜专 讚谉 诪讚谞讬讗诇 讙讚 诪讙讚讬讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖砖 转转 专专 讙讙 讞讞


therefore, the verse states 鈥渙ne,鈥 which means one complete labor. How can the two phrases be reconciled? Rather it must be explained that one is liable only if he writes a small name that constitutes part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from the name Shimon or from Shmuel, Noa岣 from Na岣r, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gaddiel. Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he wrote only two letters that are one type of letter, e.g., shesh [shin shin], tet [tav tav], rar [reish reish], gag [gimmel gimmel], 岣岣 [岣t 岣t].


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 砖讻谉 专讜砖诪讬谉 注诇 拽专砖讬 讛诪砖讻谉 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 诇驻讬讻讱 砖专讟 砖专讬讟讛 讗讞转 注诇 砖谞讬 谞住专讬谉 讗讜 砖转讬 砖专讬讟讜转 注诇 谞住专 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to the labor of writing? Isn鈥檛 one liable only due to the prohibition of marking, as they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle to know which beam was another beam鈥檚 counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讻诇 讛砖诐 注讚 砖讬讗专讜讙 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讗转 讻诇 讛谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转 讗讬 诪讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗专讙 讗诇讗 讞讜讟 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讘谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 诪转拽讬讬诪转


Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states, 鈥淲hen a leader sinned, and he unwittingly performed one of any of the commandments which the Lord his God commanded not to do, and is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22), and from the word one, I might have thought that one is not guilty until he performs a complete labor, e.g., until he writes the entire name that he intended to write, or until he weaves the entire garment, or until he crafts the entire sieve made from the reeds of the warp and the woof; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase 鈥渇rom one,鈥 I might have thought that one is liable even if he wrote only a single letter, or even if he wove only a single thread, or even if he crafted only a single eye of the sieve. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渙ne.鈥 But how can we reconcile the two phrases? One is only liable for performing a labor that is of the type that endures. In that case it is considered a complete labor.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讜注砖讛 讛谞讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd did an action from one of these鈥 (Leviticus 4:2). This unusual expression indicates repetition: And he performed one, and he performed these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖砖 转转 专专 讙讙 讞讞


The Gemara returns to the matter of the baraita: In any event, it was taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he only wrote two letters that are one type of letter; he does not insist that one is liable only if he writes two different letters. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This opinion is his own, and that other opinion is that of his teacher, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Even if one only wrote two identical letters, forming words such as shesh, tet, rar, gag, or 岣岣, he is liable. That is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诇祝 讗诇祝 讚讗讗讝专讱 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诇祝 讗诇祝 讚讗讗讝专讱 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讙诇讟讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. And if you say that there is a practical difference between their opinions in the case of the letters alef alef in a word such as a鈥檃zerkha (Isaiah 45:5), in that the first tanna holds that if one wrote the letters alef alef of the word a鈥檃zerkha he is not liable because the two letters do not spell a complete word, and Rabbi Shimon holds that since that combination of letters appears in standard amulets [gelatorei] he is liable because this writing is considered to be enduring; is that to say that the opinion of Rabbi Shimon tends to stringency in this matter?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诪讙专专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛诪注讘讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛爪专 讘讻诇讬 爪讜专讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讚讞 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬讙专讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬注讘讚 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬爪讜专 讻讜诇讜


Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat is liable, one who scrapes and smooths posts or parchments in any amount is liable, one who tans any amount of an animal hide is liable, one who draws any size form on a vessel is liable? Rabbi Shimon says: One is liable only if he drills the entire hole that he intended to drill, or if he scrapes the entire post or parchment that he intended to scrape, or if he tans the entire hide that he intended to tan, or if he draws the entire form that he intended to draw. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is the lenient one.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛驻住讜拽 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转


Rather, Rabbi Shimon comes to teach us this: It is considered writing that endures only if he writes the entire name. The Gemara asks: And how can you say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: From the phrase 鈥渁nd he performed one鈥 I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire name; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 Apparently, he does not require that the entire word be written in order to be liable. The Gemara answers: Resolve the contradiction between these statements and say this: I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire verse that he intended to write; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讜注砖讛 讛谞讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


The baraita cites that Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd did an action from one of these.鈥 This unusual expression indicates repetition and it is as if it says: And he did one, and he did these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讞转 诪讗讞转 讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 讛谞讛 讜讛谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转


And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? Since the verse says 鈥渇rom one鈥 and 鈥渙f these,鈥 Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., 鈥渇rom鈥 and 鈥渙f,鈥 an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say 鈥渙ne鈥 and not 鈥渇rom one,鈥 and it would have been sufficient to say 鈥渢hese鈥 instead of 鈥渙f these.鈥 The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of one that is these and cases of these that are one.


讗讞转 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讞转 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讛 讗讘讜转 诪讛谞讛 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 讛谞讛 讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讛谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转 砖讙讙转 砖讘转 讜讝讚讜谉 诪诇讗讻讜转:


Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said 鈥渙ne,鈥 the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name Shimon on Shabbat. 鈥淔rom one鈥 teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing Shem from Shimon. 鈥淭hese鈥 refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. The words 鈥渇rom these鈥 teach that even subcategories are included. The Gemara illustrates the case of one that is these. One was aware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but not aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, if he performed several prohibited labors during this lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each violation. These that are one refers to a case where one was unaware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but he was aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all of the prohibited labors.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇: 诪讬 讚诪讬 诪诐 讚砖诐 住转讜诐 诪诐 讚砖诪注讜谉 驻转讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 住转讜诐 讜注砖讗讜 驻转讜讞 讻砖专


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing and wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from Shimon. The Gemara asks: Is it similar? The mem in Shem is closed and the mem in Shimon is open. Rav 岣sda said: That is to say that a closed letter that one rendered open is valid even in writing a Torah scroll, and it is not considered an irregularity in the writing. Therefore, one is liable for writing an open letter instead of a closed one.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻转讘转诐 砖转讛讗 讻转讬讘讛 转诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讻转讜讘 讗诇驻讬谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 讗诇驻讬谉 讘讬转讬谉 讻驻讬谉 讻驻讬谉 讘讬转讬谉 讙诪讬谉 爪讚讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讙诪讬谉 讚诇转讬谉 专讬砖讬谉 专讬砖讬谉 讚诇转讬谉 讛讬讛讬谉 讞讬转讬谉 讞讬转讬谉 讛讬讛讬谉 讜讜讬谉 讬讜讚讬谉 讬讜讚讬谉 讜讜讬谉 讝讬讬谞讬谉 谞讜谞讬谉 谞讜谞讬谉 讝讬讬谞讬谉 讟讬转讬谉 驻讬驻讬谉 驻讬驻讬谉 讟讬转讬谉


The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9). 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam]鈥 means that it should be perfect writing [ketiva tamma] with no mistakes, and clear writing. This means that one should not write an alef as an ayin, an ayin as an alef, a beit as a kaf, a kaf as a beit, a gimmel as a tzadi, a tzadi as a gimmel, a dalet as a reish, a reish as a dalet, a heh as a 岣t, a 岣t as a heh, a vav as a yod, a yod as a vav, a zayin as a nun, a nun as a zayin, a tet as a peh, a peh as a tet.


讻驻讜驻讬谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 讻驻讜驻讬谉 诪讬诪讬谉 住诪讻讬谉 住诪讻讬谉 诪讬诪讬谉 住转讜诪讬谉 驻转讜讞讬谉 驻转讜讞讬谉 住转讜诪讬谉 驻专砖讛 驻转讜讞讛 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 住转讜诪讛 住转讜诪讛 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 驻转讜讞讛 讻转讘讛 讻砖讬专讛 讗讜 砖讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讗讜 砖讻转讘 砖诇讗 讘讚讬讜 讗讜 砖讻转讘 讗转 讛讗讝讻专讜转 讘讝讛讘 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讙谞讝讜


Similarly, one should not write bent letters like kaf and nun found in the middle of a word as straight letters like kaf and nun found at the end of a word, nor should one write straight letters as bent letters. A final mem should not be written like a samekh, and a samekh should not be written like a mem. A closed mem should not be written open, and an open one should not be written closed. Similarly, if there is an open paragraph in the Torah one may not render it closed, and one may not render a closed paragraph open. If one wrote a mezuza or a Torah scroll following the Torah鈥檚 format for poetry or if one wrote poetry like regular text, as a mezuza is typically written, or if one wrote without ink but with another material, or if one wrote the mentions of God鈥檚 names in gold, all of these must be suppressed. Apparently, one may not write closed letters as open letters, contrary to the statement of Rav 岣sda.


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘砖砖讬 讜谞住讻讬讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 讻诪砖驻讟诐 讛专讬 诪诐 讬讜讚 诪诐 诪讬诐 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇谞讬住讜讱 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: While on the rest of the days of Sukkot the verse employs the phrase: 鈥淎nd its libation [veniska],鈥 on the second day it is stated: 鈥淎nd their libations [veniskeihem]鈥 (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter mem; on the sixth day, it is stated: 鈥淎nd its libations [unsakhe鈥檃h]鈥 (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter yod. On the seventh day, instead of 鈥渁ccording to the law [kamishpat]鈥 employed on the other days, it is stated: 鈥淎ccording to their laws [kemishpatam]鈥 (Numbers 29:33) with an extra letter mem. Together these additional letters, mem, yod, and mem, form the word mayim, which means water. This is an allusion to the water libation from the Torah. On Sukkot, a water libation was poured onto the altar in addition to the wine libation that accompanied sacrifices throughout the year. However, here, the closed mem at the end of the word veniskeihem is interpreted as if it were an open mem and used as the first mem in mayim.


讜诪讚驻转讜讞 讜注砖讗讜 住转讜诐 讻砖专 住转讜诐 谞诪讬 住转讜诐 讜注砖讗讜 驻转讜讞 讻砖专


And from the fact that an open letter that one rendered closed is valid, in the case of a closed letter, too, a closed letter that one rendered open is valid. This homiletic interpretation supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion.


诪讬 讚诪讬 驻转讜讞 讜注砖讗讜 住转讜诐


The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is it similar? If one rendered an open letter closed,


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 102-109

This week we will learn 2.5 chapters! We will discuss the activity of building and completing items, writing, weaving, sewing,...
chart

The Writing On the Wall

This week we begin looking at the melacha of kotev, writing. The Mishnah on daf 103 explains how much one...

Shabbat 103

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 103

讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讞专 讞讜专转讗 诇讘谞讬讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讝注讬讛 讘专诪爪讗 讚驻专讝诇讗 讜砖讘拽讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛:


One who drills a hole of any size is liable. Granted, according to Rav, who said that one who makes a hole is liable due to the prohibited labor of building, here too, he should be liable because he appears as one who is making a hole for the purpose of building. However, according to Shmuel, drilling a hole is not a completion of the labor. The labor will be complete only when a stake or pin is inserted into the hole. Until he does so, he cannot be liable for completing the labor. The Gemara answers: With what we are dealing here? With a case where one drilled a hole with an iron nail and left it inside the surface in which he drilled the hole. That is considered a completion of labor because there is no intention to remove the nail from its hole.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇: 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讚讞拽 拽驻讬讝讗 讘拽讘讗:


We learned in the mishna that this is the principle: Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. The Gemara asks: What does the phrase: This is the principle, come to include? The Gemara explains: It comes to include a case where one carved out a vessel with a capacity of half a kav [kefiza] into a piece of wood in which it was possible to chisel a vessel with a capacity of a whole kav. Since this labor endures on Shabbat and it can be used, it is considered a complete labor and he is liable.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讗诪谉 讗转 讬讚讜 拽砖讜 讘讛 讘谞讬 专讞讘讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讝讗 讗讜诪谞转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讙诪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 砖讻谉 诪专讚讚讬 讟住讬 诪砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讻讛 讘拽讜专谞住 注诇 讛住讚谉 讘砖注转 诪诇讗讻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 诪专讚讚讬 讟住讬 诪砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉:


We also learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer is liable. The Gemara wonders: What has he done by striking the anvil that would render him liable? It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said in explanation: He is liable because he trains his hand for his work by striking the anvil. The sons of a man named Ra岣va found this answer difficult: If so, one who observed a craft being performed on Shabbat and learned to perform that craft through observation, would he also be liable? Only one who performs an actual labor on Shabbat is liable. Rather, it was Abaye and Rava who both said in explanation: He is liable, as those who flatten plates of metal for the Tabernacle do so. They would strike the anvil with the sledgehammer in order to straighten the sledgehammer鈥檚 handle, which became crooked. That was also taught in a baraita. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor is liable, as those who flatten plates of metal for the Tabernacle do so.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜专砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛诪谞讻砖 讜讛诪拽专住诐 讜讛诪讝专讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诪诇拽讟 注爪讬诐 讗诐 诇转拽谉 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诐 诇讛讬住拽 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛 讛诪诇拽讟 注砖讘讬诐 讗诐 诇转拽谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讻诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讙讚讬:


MISHNA: One who plows is liable for plowing any amount of land on Shabbat. One who weeds and removes grass on Shabbat, and one who removes dry branches and who prunes any amount is liable. With regard to one who gathers wood, if he did so to enhance the tree or the land, he is liable for any amount; if he did so for fuel, he is liable for collecting a measure equivalent to that which is used to cook an easily cooked egg. With regard to one who gathers grass, if he did so to enhance the plants or the land, he is liable for any amount; if he did so to feed an animal, he is liable for collecting a measure equivalent to a goat鈥檚 mouthful.


讙诪壮 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讞讝讬 诇讘讬讝专讗 讚拽专讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 诪砖讻谉 砖讻谉 专讗讜讬 诇拽诇讞 讗讞讚 砖诇 住诪谞讬谉:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: For what use is plowing any amount of land suited? The Gemara answers: It is suited for a single pumpkin seed. The corresponding situation in the Tabernacle was as it is suitable for planting a single stalk of herbs to make dyes.


讛诪谞讻砖 讜讛诪拽专住诐 讜讛诪讝专讚: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讜诇砖 注讜诇砖讬谉 讜讛诪讝专讚 讝专讚讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 讗诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讻诪诇讗 驻讬 讛讙讚讬 讗诐 诇讛讬住拽 讻讚讬 诇讘砖诇 讘讬爪讛 拽诇讛 讗诐 诇讬讬驻讜转 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛谉


We also learned in the mishna: One who weeds, and one who removes dry branches, and who prunes any amount is liable. The Sages taught that in a baraita: With regard to one who severs endives that grow like weeds, or who prunes reeds [zeradim]; if he did so for human consumption, he is liable in the measure of a fig-bulk; if he did so for animal consumption, he is liable in a measure equivalent to a goat鈥檚 mouthful. If he did so for fuel, he is liable for severing a measure equivalent to that which is used to cook an easily cooked egg. If he did so to enhance the land, he is liable for any amount.


讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讛拽专拽注 谞讬谞讛讜 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讗讙诐 砖谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖讚讛 讚诇讗讜 讗讙诐 讜讻讙讜谉 讚诇讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽注讘讬讚 讘讗专注讗 讚讞讘专讬讛:


The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 all these done to enhance the land? Each stalk that a person uproots enhances the land. It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said in explanation: They taught this baraita with regard to swampland, where grass is not uprooted to enhance the land. Abaye said: Even if you say that the baraita is referring to a field that is not a swampland, it can be referring to a case where one did not intend to enhance the land. The Gemara asks: However, is it not Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is liable only for performing an intentional action, concedes that one is liable in a case of cut off its head, will it not die? In any case where the outcome is inevitable, as in this case where the land will be enhanced, one鈥檚 lack of intention does not exempt him. The Gemara answers: Abaye鈥檚 statement was only necessary in a case where one did so on another鈥檚 land. Since he did not intend for that outcome to eventuate and he derives no benefit from enhancing the land, he is not liable in that case.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讘讬谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 讘砖诪讗诇讜 讘讬谉 诪砖诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 诪砖转讬 砖诪讜转 讘讬谉 诪砖转讬 住诪谞讬讜转 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇 拽专砖讬 讛诪砖讻谉 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讜诪砖诪讜讗诇 谞讞 诪谞讞讜专 讚谉 诪讚谞讬讗诇 讙讚 诪讙讚讬讗诇:


MISHNA: One who writes two letters on Shabbat, whether he did so with his right hand or his left, whether they were the same letter or two different letters, whether he did so using two different types of ink, in any language, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei said: One is deemed liable for writing two letters only due to marking, as they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle to know which beam was another beam鈥檚 counterpart. Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name, e.g., Shem [shin mem] from the name Shimon or from Shmuel; Noa岣 [nun 岣t] from Na岣r; Dan [dalet nun] from Daniel; Gad [gimmel dalet] from Gaddiel. In all of these cases, the first two letters of the longer name constitute the shorter name.


讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬诪讬谉 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讗砖诪讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讻转讬讘讛 讘讻讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讟专 讬讚 砖谞讜 讜转讛讜讬 砖诪讗诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讬诪讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讗砖诪讗诇 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬诪讬谉 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讜诇讟 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the beginning of the mishna: Granted, for writing with the right hand let one be liable, as that is the typical manner of writing. However, for writing with the left hand, why is one liable? That is not the typical manner of writing. Rabbi Yirmeya said: When the mishna taught that one who writes with his left hand is liable, they taught it with regard to one who is left-handed. The Gemara asks: And if so, let his left hand have the same legal status as everyone鈥檚 right hand; for writing with his left hand, let him be liable, for writing with his right hand, let him not be liable. Rather, Abaye said: This mishna refers to an ambidextrous person, who is liable for writing with either hand.


专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗:


Rav Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: One is deemed liable for writing two letters only due to marking. As such, one is liable for writing a letter even if he writes it imprecisely with his left hand. The Gemara asks: From the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the first clause of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara answers: That is not necessarily the case. The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and the attribution of his second statement was for emphasis alone.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜: 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name. The Gemara asks: Rather, is that to say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is one who writes two letters that are two different types of letters who is liable; however, one who writes two letters that are one type of letter is not liable?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讻诇 讛砖诐 讜注讚 砖讬讗专讜讙 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 讜注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讻诇 讛谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转


Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淲hen a leader sinned, and he unwittingly performed one of any of the commandments which the Lord his God commanded not to do, and is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22)? The Sages taught: I might have thought that one is not guilty until he performs a complete labor, e.g., until he writes the entire name that he intended to write, or until he weaves the entire garment, or until he crafts the entire sieve made from the reeds of the warp and the woof; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 soul who sins unintentionally in any of the Lord鈥檚 commandments which one shall not perform, and did an action from one of these鈥 (Leviticus 4:2).


讗讬 诪讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜诇讗 讗专讙 讗诇讗 讞讜讟 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讘谞驻讛


The emphasis on the phrase 鈥渇rom one鈥 teaches that in order for one to be liable, it is sufficient that he perform only part of the prohibited labor. However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase 鈥渇rom one,鈥 I might have thought that one is liable even if he wrote only a single letter, or even if he wove only a single thread, or even if he crafted only a single eye of the sieve, i.e., arranging the reeds to create a warp, and then interweaving a single reed as a woof;


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讜诪砖诪讜讗诇 谞讞 诪谞讞讜专 讚谉 诪讚谞讬讗诇 讙讚 诪讙讚讬讗诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖砖 转转 专专 讙讙 讞讞


therefore, the verse states 鈥渙ne,鈥 which means one complete labor. How can the two phrases be reconciled? Rather it must be explained that one is liable only if he writes a small name that constitutes part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from the name Shimon or from Shmuel, Noa岣 from Na岣r, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gaddiel. Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he wrote only two letters that are one type of letter, e.g., shesh [shin shin], tet [tav tav], rar [reish reish], gag [gimmel gimmel], 岣岣 [岣t 岣t].


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讜转讘 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专讜砖诐 砖讻谉 专讜砖诪讬谉 注诇 拽专砖讬 讛诪砖讻谉 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讘谉 讝讜讙讜 诇驻讬讻讱 砖专讟 砖专讬讟讛 讗讞转 注诇 砖谞讬 谞住专讬谉 讗讜 砖转讬 砖专讬讟讜转 注诇 谞住专 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to the labor of writing? Isn鈥檛 one liable only due to the prohibition of marking, as they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle to know which beam was another beam鈥檚 counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讻诇 讛砖诐 注讚 砖讬讗专讜讙 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讗转 讻诇 讛谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转 讗讬 诪讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗讜转 讗讞转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗专讙 讗诇讗 讞讜讟 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讘谞驻讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 诪转拽讬讬诪转


Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states, 鈥淲hen a leader sinned, and he unwittingly performed one of any of the commandments which the Lord his God commanded not to do, and is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22), and from the word one, I might have thought that one is not guilty until he performs a complete labor, e.g., until he writes the entire name that he intended to write, or until he weaves the entire garment, or until he crafts the entire sieve made from the reeds of the warp and the woof; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase 鈥渇rom one,鈥 I might have thought that one is liable even if he wrote only a single letter, or even if he wove only a single thread, or even if he crafted only a single eye of the sieve. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渙ne.鈥 But how can we reconcile the two phrases? One is only liable for performing a labor that is of the type that endures. In that case it is considered a complete labor.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讜注砖讛 讛谞讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd did an action from one of these鈥 (Leviticus 4:2). This unusual expression indicates repetition: And he performed one, and he performed these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖砖 转转 专专 讙讙 讞讞


The Gemara returns to the matter of the baraita: In any event, it was taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he only wrote two letters that are one type of letter; he does not insist that one is liable only if he writes two different letters. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This opinion is his own, and that other opinion is that of his teacher, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Even if one only wrote two identical letters, forming words such as shesh, tet, rar, gag, or 岣岣, he is liable. That is Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诇祝 讗诇祝 讚讗讗讝专讱 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗诇祝 讗诇祝 讚讗讗讝专讱 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讙诇讟讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. And if you say that there is a practical difference between their opinions in the case of the letters alef alef in a word such as a鈥檃zerkha (Isaiah 45:5), in that the first tanna holds that if one wrote the letters alef alef of the word a鈥檃zerkha he is not liable because the two letters do not spell a complete word, and Rabbi Shimon holds that since that combination of letters appears in standard amulets [gelatorei] he is liable because this writing is considered to be enduring; is that to say that the opinion of Rabbi Shimon tends to stringency in this matter?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛拽讜讚讞 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诪讙专专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛诪注讘讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛爪专 讘讻诇讬 爪讜专讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬拽讚讞 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬讙专讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬注讘讚 讗转 讻讜诇讜 注讚 砖讬爪讜专 讻讜诇讜


Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat is liable, one who scrapes and smooths posts or parchments in any amount is liable, one who tans any amount of an animal hide is liable, one who draws any size form on a vessel is liable? Rabbi Shimon says: One is liable only if he drills the entire hole that he intended to drill, or if he scrapes the entire post or parchment that he intended to scrape, or if he tans the entire hide that he intended to tan, or if he draws the entire form that he intended to draw. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is the lenient one.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讻讜诇讜 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛砖诐 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转 转专讬抓 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬讻讜诇 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗转 讛驻住讜拽 讻讜诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讗讞转


Rather, Rabbi Shimon comes to teach us this: It is considered writing that endures only if he writes the entire name. The Gemara asks: And how can you say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: From the phrase 鈥渁nd he performed one鈥 I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire name; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 Apparently, he does not require that the entire word be written in order to be liable. The Gemara answers: Resolve the contradiction between these statements and say this: I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire verse that he intended to write; therefore, the verse states 鈥渇rom one.鈥 One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗讞转 讜注砖讛 讛谞讛 驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讜驻注诪讬诐 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转


The baraita cites that Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd did an action from one of these.鈥 This unusual expression indicates repetition and it is as if it says: And he did one, and he did these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讞转 诪讗讞转 讛谞讛 诪讛谞讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 讛谞讛 讜讛谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转


And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? Since the verse says 鈥渇rom one鈥 and 鈥渙f these,鈥 Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., 鈥渇rom鈥 and 鈥渙f,鈥 an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say 鈥渙ne鈥 and not 鈥渇rom one,鈥 and it would have been sufficient to say 鈥渢hese鈥 instead of 鈥渙f these.鈥 The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of one that is these and cases of these that are one.


讗讞转 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讞转 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讛 讗讘讜转 诪讛谞讛 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 讛谞讛 讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讛谞讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转 砖讙讙转 砖讘转 讜讝讚讜谉 诪诇讗讻讜转:


Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said 鈥渙ne,鈥 the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name Shimon on Shabbat. 鈥淔rom one鈥 teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing Shem from Shimon. 鈥淭hese鈥 refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. The words 鈥渇rom these鈥 teach that even subcategories are included. The Gemara illustrates the case of one that is these. One was aware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but not aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, if he performed several prohibited labors during this lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each violation. These that are one refers to a case where one was unaware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but he was aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all of the prohibited labors.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖诐 拽讟谉 诪砖诐 讙讚讜诇: 诪讬 讚诪讬 诪诐 讚砖诐 住转讜诐 诪诐 讚砖诪注讜谉 驻转讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 住转讜诐 讜注砖讗讜 驻转讜讞 讻砖专


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: We found that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing and wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from Shimon. The Gemara asks: Is it similar? The mem in Shem is closed and the mem in Shimon is open. Rav 岣sda said: That is to say that a closed letter that one rendered open is valid even in writing a Torah scroll, and it is not considered an irregularity in the writing. Therefore, one is liable for writing an open letter instead of a closed one.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻转讘转诐 砖转讛讗 讻转讬讘讛 转诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讻转讜讘 讗诇驻讬谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 注讬讬谞讬谉 讗诇驻讬谉 讘讬转讬谉 讻驻讬谉 讻驻讬谉 讘讬转讬谉 讙诪讬谉 爪讚讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讙诪讬谉 讚诇转讬谉 专讬砖讬谉 专讬砖讬谉 讚诇转讬谉 讛讬讛讬谉 讞讬转讬谉 讞讬转讬谉 讛讬讛讬谉 讜讜讬谉 讬讜讚讬谉 讬讜讚讬谉 讜讜讬谉 讝讬讬谞讬谉 谞讜谞讬谉 谞讜谞讬谉 讝讬讬谞讬谉 讟讬转讬谉 驻讬驻讬谉 驻讬驻讬谉 讟讬转讬谉


The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9). 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam]鈥 means that it should be perfect writing [ketiva tamma] with no mistakes, and clear writing. This means that one should not write an alef as an ayin, an ayin as an alef, a beit as a kaf, a kaf as a beit, a gimmel as a tzadi, a tzadi as a gimmel, a dalet as a reish, a reish as a dalet, a heh as a 岣t, a 岣t as a heh, a vav as a yod, a yod as a vav, a zayin as a nun, a nun as a zayin, a tet as a peh, a peh as a tet.


讻驻讜驻讬谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 讻驻讜驻讬谉 诪讬诪讬谉 住诪讻讬谉 住诪讻讬谉 诪讬诪讬谉 住转讜诪讬谉 驻转讜讞讬谉 驻转讜讞讬谉 住转讜诪讬谉 驻专砖讛 驻转讜讞讛 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 住转讜诪讛 住转讜诪讛 诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 驻转讜讞讛 讻转讘讛 讻砖讬专讛 讗讜 砖讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讗讜 砖讻转讘 砖诇讗 讘讚讬讜 讗讜 砖讻转讘 讗转 讛讗讝讻专讜转 讘讝讛讘 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讙谞讝讜


Similarly, one should not write bent letters like kaf and nun found in the middle of a word as straight letters like kaf and nun found at the end of a word, nor should one write straight letters as bent letters. A final mem should not be written like a samekh, and a samekh should not be written like a mem. A closed mem should not be written open, and an open one should not be written closed. Similarly, if there is an open paragraph in the Torah one may not render it closed, and one may not render a closed paragraph open. If one wrote a mezuza or a Torah scroll following the Torah鈥檚 format for poetry or if one wrote poetry like regular text, as a mezuza is typically written, or if one wrote without ink but with another material, or if one wrote the mentions of God鈥檚 names in gold, all of these must be suppressed. Apparently, one may not write closed letters as open letters, contrary to the statement of Rav 岣sda.


讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘砖砖讬 讜谞住讻讬讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 讻诪砖驻讟诐 讛专讬 诪诐 讬讜讚 诪诐 诪讬诐 诪讻讗谉 专诪讝 诇谞讬住讜讱 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: While on the rest of the days of Sukkot the verse employs the phrase: 鈥淎nd its libation [veniska],鈥 on the second day it is stated: 鈥淎nd their libations [veniskeihem]鈥 (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter mem; on the sixth day, it is stated: 鈥淎nd its libations [unsakhe鈥檃h]鈥 (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter yod. On the seventh day, instead of 鈥渁ccording to the law [kamishpat]鈥 employed on the other days, it is stated: 鈥淎ccording to their laws [kemishpatam]鈥 (Numbers 29:33) with an extra letter mem. Together these additional letters, mem, yod, and mem, form the word mayim, which means water. This is an allusion to the water libation from the Torah. On Sukkot, a water libation was poured onto the altar in addition to the wine libation that accompanied sacrifices throughout the year. However, here, the closed mem at the end of the word veniskeihem is interpreted as if it were an open mem and used as the first mem in mayim.


讜诪讚驻转讜讞 讜注砖讗讜 住转讜诐 讻砖专 住转讜诐 谞诪讬 住转讜诐 讜注砖讗讜 驻转讜讞 讻砖专


And from the fact that an open letter that one rendered closed is valid, in the case of a closed letter, too, a closed letter that one rendered open is valid. This homiletic interpretation supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion.


诪讬 讚诪讬 驻转讜讞 讜注砖讗讜 住转讜诐


The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is it similar? If one rendered an open letter closed,


Scroll To Top