Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 17, 2020 | כ״ה בסיון תש״פ

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.

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?

הקודח כל שהוא חייב בשלמא לרב מיחזי כמאן דחר חורתא לבניינא אלא לשמואל לאו גמר מלאכה הוא הכא במאי עסקינן דבזעיה ברמצא דפרזלא ושבקיה בגוויה דהיינו גמר מלאכה:

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.

זה הכלל: זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי דחק קפיזא בקבא:

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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המכה בקורנס על הסדן כו׳: מאי קעביד רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו מפני שמאמן את ידו קשו בה בני רחבה אלא מעתה חזא אומנתא בשבתא וגמר הכי נמי דמיחייב אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן תניא נמי הכי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף המכה בקורנס על הסדן בשעת מלאכה חייב שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן:

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 Raḥava 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’s 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.

מתני׳ החורש כל שהוא המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד כל שהוא חייב המלקט עצים אם לתקן כל שהן אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה המלקט עשבים אם לתקן כל שהוא אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי:

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’s mouthful.

גמ׳ למאי חזי חזי לביזרא דקרא דכוותה גבי משכן שכן ראוי לקלח אחד של סמנין:

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.

המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד: תנו רבנן התולש עולשין והמזרד זרדים אם לאכילה כגרוגרת אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה אם לייפות את הקרקע כל שהן

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’s 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.

אטו כולהו לא ליפות את הקרקע נינהו רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו באגם שנו אביי אמר אפילו תימא בשדה דלאו אגם וכגון דלא קמיכוין והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות לא צריכא דקעביד בארעא דחבריה:

The Gemara asks: Aren’t 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’s lack of intention does not exempt him. The Gemara answers: Abaye’s statement was only necessary in a case where one did so on another’s 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.

מתני׳ הכותב שתי אותיות בין בימינו בין בשמאלו בין משם אחד בין משתי שמות בין משתי סמניות בכל לשון חייב אמר רבי יוסי לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם שכך כותבין על קרשי המשכן לידע איזו בן זוגו אמר רבי יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל:

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’s 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; Noaḥ [nun ḥet] from Naḥor; 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.

גמ׳ בשלמא אימין ליחייב משום דדרך כתיבה בכך אלא אשמאל אמאי הא אין דרך כתיבה בכך אמר רבי ירמיה באטר יד שנו ותהוי שמאל דידיה כימין דכולי עלמא ואשמאל ליחייב אימין לא ליחייב אלא אמר אביי בשולט בשתי ידיו

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’s 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.

רב יעקב בריה דבת יעקב אמר הא מני רבי יוסי היא דאמר לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם והא מדסיפא רבי יוסי היא רישא לאו רבי יוסי כולה רבי יוסי היא:

Rav Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, 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.

אמר רבי יהודה מצינו: אלא רבי יהודה שתי אותיות והן שני שמות הוא דמחייב שתי אותיות והן שם אחד לא מחייב

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?

והתניא ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב כל השם ועד שיארוג כל הבגד ועד שיעשה כל הנפה תלמוד לומר מאחת

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “When 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” (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: “A soul who sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments which one shall not perform, and did an action from one of these” (Leviticus 4:2).

אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ולא ארג אלא חוט אחד ולא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה

The emphasis on the phrase “from one” 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 “from one,” 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;

תלמוד לומר אחת הא כיצד אינו חייב עד שיכתוב שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל רבי יהודה אומר אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב כגון שש תת רר גג חח

therefore, the verse states “one,” 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, Noaḥ from Naḥor, 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], ḥaḥ [ḥet ḥet].

אמר רבי יוסי וכי משום כותב הוא חייב והלא אינו חייב אלא משום רושם שכן רושמין על קרשי המשכן לידע איזו היא בן זוגו לפיכך שרט שריטה אחת על שני נסרין או שתי שריטות על נסר אחד חייב

Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to the labor of writing? Isn’t 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’s counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.

רבי שמעון אומר ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את כל השם עד שיארוג כל הבגד עד שיעשה את כל הנפה תלמוד לומר מאחת אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ואפילו לא ארג אלא חוט אחד ואפילו לא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה תלמוד לומר אחת הא כיצד אינו חייב עד שיעשה מלאכה שכיוצא בה מתקיימת

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states, “When 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” (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 “from one.” However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase “from one,” 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 “one.” 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.

רבי יוסי אומר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת

Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these” (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.

קתני מיהא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבן גמליאל אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב כגון שש תת רר גג חח

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 ḥaḥ, he is liable. That is Rabban Gamliel’s opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.

ורבי שמעון היינו תנא קמא וכי תימא אלף אלף דאאזרך איכא בינייהו דתנא קמא סבר אלף אלף דאאזרך לא מיחייב ורבי שמעון סבר כיון דאיתיה בגלטורי בעלמא חייב למימרא דרבי שמעון לחומרא

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’azerkha (Isaiah 45:5), in that the first tanna holds that if one wrote the letters alef alef of the word a’azerkha 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?

והתניא הקודח כל שהוא חייב המגרר כל שהוא המעבד כל שהוא הצר בכלי צורה כל שהוא רבי שמעון אומר עד שיקדח את כולו עד שיגרור את כולו עד שיעבד את כולו עד שיצור כולו

Wasn’t 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’s opinion is the lenient one.

אלא רבי שמעון הא אתא לאשמעינן עד שיכתוב את השם כולו ומי מצית אמרת הכי והתניא רבי שמעון אומר ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את השם כולו תלמוד לומר מאחת תריץ ואימא הכי יכול עד שיכתוב את הפסוק כולו תלמוד לומר מאחת

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’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: From the phrase “and he performed one” I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire name; therefore, the verse states “from one.” 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 “from one.” One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.

רבי יוסי אומר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת

The baraita cites that Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these.” 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.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion? Since the verse says “from one” and “of these,” Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., “from” and “of,” an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say “one” and not “from one,” and it would have been sufficient to say “these” instead of “of these.” The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of one that is these and cases of these that are one.

אחת שמעון מאחת שם משמעון הנה אבות מהנה תולדות אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות:

Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said “one,” the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name Shimon on Shabbat. “From one” teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing Shem from Shimon. “These” refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. The words “from these” 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.

אמר רבי יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול: מי דמי מם דשם סתום מם דשמעון פתוח אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

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 Ḥisda 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.

מיתיבי וכתבתם שתהא כתיבה תמה שלא יכתוב אלפין עיינין עיינין אלפין ביתין כפין כפין ביתין גמין צדין צדין גמין דלתין רישין רישין דלתין היהין חיתין חיתין היהין ווין יודין יודין ווין זיינין נונין נונין זיינין טיתין פיפין פיפין טיתין

The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]” 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 ḥet, a ḥet 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.

כפופין פשוטין פשוטין כפופין מימין סמכין סמכין מימין סתומין פתוחין פתוחין סתומין פרשה פתוחה לא יעשנה סתומה סתומה לא יעשנה פתוחה כתבה כשירה או שכתב את השירה כיוצא בה או שכתב שלא בדיו או שכתב את האזכרות בזהב הרי אלו יגנזו

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’s 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’s 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 Ḥisda.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירה אומר נאמר בשני ונסכיהם בששי ונסכיה בשביעי כמשפטם הרי מם יוד מם מים מכאן רמז לניסוך מים מן התורה

The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda 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: “And its libation [veniska],” on the second day it is stated: “And their libations [veniskeihem]” (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter mem; on the sixth day, it is stated: “And its libations [unsakhe’ah]” (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter yod. On the seventh day, instead of “according to the law [kamishpat]” employed on the other days, it is stated: “According to their laws [kemishpatam]” (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.

ומדפתוח ועשאו סתום כשר סתום נמי סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

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 Ḥisda’s opinion.

מי דמי פתוח ועשאו סתום

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.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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,...
hebrew_alphabets

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

הקודח כל שהוא חייב בשלמא לרב מיחזי כמאן דחר חורתא לבניינא אלא לשמואל לאו גמר מלאכה הוא הכא במאי עסקינן דבזעיה ברמצא דפרזלא ושבקיה בגוויה דהיינו גמר מלאכה:

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.

זה הכלל: זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי דחק קפיזא בקבא:

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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המכה בקורנס על הסדן כו׳: מאי קעביד רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו מפני שמאמן את ידו קשו בה בני רחבה אלא מעתה חזא אומנתא בשבתא וגמר הכי נמי דמיחייב אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן תניא נמי הכי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף המכה בקורנס על הסדן בשעת מלאכה חייב שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן:

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 Raḥava 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’s 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.

מתני׳ החורש כל שהוא המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד כל שהוא חייב המלקט עצים אם לתקן כל שהן אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה המלקט עשבים אם לתקן כל שהוא אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי:

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’s mouthful.

גמ׳ למאי חזי חזי לביזרא דקרא דכוותה גבי משכן שכן ראוי לקלח אחד של סמנין:

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.

המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד: תנו רבנן התולש עולשין והמזרד זרדים אם לאכילה כגרוגרת אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה אם לייפות את הקרקע כל שהן

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’s 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.

אטו כולהו לא ליפות את הקרקע נינהו רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו באגם שנו אביי אמר אפילו תימא בשדה דלאו אגם וכגון דלא קמיכוין והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות לא צריכא דקעביד בארעא דחבריה:

The Gemara asks: Aren’t 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’s lack of intention does not exempt him. The Gemara answers: Abaye’s statement was only necessary in a case where one did so on another’s 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.

מתני׳ הכותב שתי אותיות בין בימינו בין בשמאלו בין משם אחד בין משתי שמות בין משתי סמניות בכל לשון חייב אמר רבי יוסי לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם שכך כותבין על קרשי המשכן לידע איזו בן זוגו אמר רבי יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל:

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’s 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; Noaḥ [nun ḥet] from Naḥor; 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.

גמ׳ בשלמא אימין ליחייב משום דדרך כתיבה בכך אלא אשמאל אמאי הא אין דרך כתיבה בכך אמר רבי ירמיה באטר יד שנו ותהוי שמאל דידיה כימין דכולי עלמא ואשמאל ליחייב אימין לא ליחייב אלא אמר אביי בשולט בשתי ידיו

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’s 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.

רב יעקב בריה דבת יעקב אמר הא מני רבי יוסי היא דאמר לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם והא מדסיפא רבי יוסי היא רישא לאו רבי יוסי כולה רבי יוסי היא:

Rav Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, 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.

אמר רבי יהודה מצינו: אלא רבי יהודה שתי אותיות והן שני שמות הוא דמחייב שתי אותיות והן שם אחד לא מחייב

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?

והתניא ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב כל השם ועד שיארוג כל הבגד ועד שיעשה כל הנפה תלמוד לומר מאחת

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “When 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” (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: “A soul who sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments which one shall not perform, and did an action from one of these” (Leviticus 4:2).

אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ולא ארג אלא חוט אחד ולא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה

The emphasis on the phrase “from one” 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 “from one,” 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;

תלמוד לומר אחת הא כיצד אינו חייב עד שיכתוב שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל רבי יהודה אומר אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב כגון שש תת רר גג חח

therefore, the verse states “one,” 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, Noaḥ from Naḥor, 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], ḥaḥ [ḥet ḥet].

אמר רבי יוסי וכי משום כותב הוא חייב והלא אינו חייב אלא משום רושם שכן רושמין על קרשי המשכן לידע איזו היא בן זוגו לפיכך שרט שריטה אחת על שני נסרין או שתי שריטות על נסר אחד חייב

Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to the labor of writing? Isn’t 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’s counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.

רבי שמעון אומר ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את כל השם עד שיארוג כל הבגד עד שיעשה את כל הנפה תלמוד לומר מאחת אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ואפילו לא ארג אלא חוט אחד ואפילו לא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה תלמוד לומר אחת הא כיצד אינו חייב עד שיעשה מלאכה שכיוצא בה מתקיימת

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states, “When 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” (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 “from one.” However, if that is derived from the use of the phrase “from one,” 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 “one.” 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.

רבי יוסי אומר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת

Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these” (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.

קתני מיהא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבן גמליאל אפילו לא כתב אלא שתי אותיות והן שם אחד חייב כגון שש תת רר גג חח

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 ḥaḥ, he is liable. That is Rabban Gamliel’s opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.

ורבי שמעון היינו תנא קמא וכי תימא אלף אלף דאאזרך איכא בינייהו דתנא קמא סבר אלף אלף דאאזרך לא מיחייב ורבי שמעון סבר כיון דאיתיה בגלטורי בעלמא חייב למימרא דרבי שמעון לחומרא

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’azerkha (Isaiah 45:5), in that the first tanna holds that if one wrote the letters alef alef of the word a’azerkha 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?

והתניא הקודח כל שהוא חייב המגרר כל שהוא המעבד כל שהוא הצר בכלי צורה כל שהוא רבי שמעון אומר עד שיקדח את כולו עד שיגרור את כולו עד שיעבד את כולו עד שיצור כולו

Wasn’t 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’s opinion is the lenient one.

אלא רבי שמעון הא אתא לאשמעינן עד שיכתוב את השם כולו ומי מצית אמרת הכי והתניא רבי שמעון אומר ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את השם כולו תלמוד לומר מאחת תריץ ואימא הכי יכול עד שיכתוב את הפסוק כולו תלמוד לומר מאחת

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’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: From the phrase “and he performed one” I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire name; therefore, the verse states “from one.” 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 “from one.” One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.

רבי יוסי אומר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת

The baraita cites that Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these.” 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.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion? Since the verse says “from one” and “of these,” Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., “from” and “of,” an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say “one” and not “from one,” and it would have been sufficient to say “these” instead of “of these.” The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of one that is these and cases of these that are one.

אחת שמעון מאחת שם משמעון הנה אבות מהנה תולדות אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות:

Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said “one,” the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name Shimon on Shabbat. “From one” teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing Shem from Shimon. “These” refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. The words “from these” 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.

אמר רבי יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול: מי דמי מם דשם סתום מם דשמעון פתוח אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

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 Ḥisda 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.

מיתיבי וכתבתם שתהא כתיבה תמה שלא יכתוב אלפין עיינין עיינין אלפין ביתין כפין כפין ביתין גמין צדין צדין גמין דלתין רישין רישין דלתין היהין חיתין חיתין היהין ווין יודין יודין ווין זיינין נונין נונין זיינין טיתין פיפין פיפין טיתין

The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]” 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 ḥet, a ḥet 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.

כפופין פשוטין פשוטין כפופין מימין סמכין סמכין מימין סתומין פתוחין פתוחין סתומין פרשה פתוחה לא יעשנה סתומה סתומה לא יעשנה פתוחה כתבה כשירה או שכתב את השירה כיוצא בה או שכתב שלא בדיו או שכתב את האזכרות בזהב הרי אלו יגנזו

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’s 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’s 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 Ḥisda.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירה אומר נאמר בשני ונסכיהם בששי ונסכיה בשביעי כמשפטם הרי מם יוד מם מים מכאן רמז לניסוך מים מן התורה

The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda 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: “And its libation [veniska],” on the second day it is stated: “And their libations [veniskeihem]” (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter mem; on the sixth day, it is stated: “And its libations [unsakhe’ah]” (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter yod. On the seventh day, instead of “according to the law [kamishpat]” employed on the other days, it is stated: “According to their laws [kemishpatam]” (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.

ומדפתוח ועשאו סתום כשר סתום נמי סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

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 Ḥisda’s opinion.

מי דמי פתוח ועשאו סתום

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

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top