Reference for Shabbat 205:13
אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ולא ארג אלא חוט אחד ולא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO WRITES TWO LETTERS, WHETHER WITH HIS RIGHT OR WITH HIS LEFT HAND, OF THE SAME DESIGNATION OR OF TWO DESIGNATIONS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same letter twice or two different letters. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> OR IN TWO PIGMENTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one letter in black and one in red. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> IN ANY LANGUAGE, IS CULPABLE. SAID R. JOSE: THEY DECLARED ONE CULPABLE [FOR WRITING] TWO LETTERS ONLY BECAUSE [HE MAKES] A MARK, BECAUSE THUS DID THEY WRITE ON EACH BOARD OF THE TABERNACLE, TO KNOW WHICH WAS ITS COMPANION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when the Tabernacle was dismantled and subsequently re-erected. the boards should remain in the same order as before. Therefore if one makes any two marks, not particularly letters, he is guilty in R. Jose's view. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND A SHORT NAME [FORMING PART] OF A LONG NAME: SHEM AS PART OF SHIME'ON OR SHEMUEL, NOAH AS PART OF NAHOR, DAN AS PART OF DANIEL, GAD AS PART OF GADDI'EL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one commences writing long names, but writes only part thereof, which forms a complete name in itself, he is liable. The actual transliteration is employed here and in the Gemara below, to show the exact letters referred to. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. As for his being culpable on account of his right hand, that is well, since that is the [usual] way of writing; but why on account of his left hand, seeing that it is not the [usual] way of writing? — Said R. Jeremiah, They learnt this of a left-handed person. Then let his left hand be as the right hand of all [other] people, and so let him be liable on account of his left, but not his right hand? — Rather said Abaye: [They learned this] of one who can use both hands. R. Jacob the son of Jacob's daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi in 'Er. 8 states that the father was an unworthy person, and so he is not mentioned. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> said: The author of this is R. Jose, who said: THEY DECLARED ONE CULPABLE [FOR WRITING] TWO LETTERS ONLY BECAUSE [HE MAKES] A MARK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even a right-handed person can do that quite easily with his left. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> But since the second clause is R. Jose['s], the first clause is not R. Jose? — The whole is R. Jose. R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND, [etc.] Then according to R. Judah, one is culpable only on account of two letters of two designations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two different letters, since he does not give an example of two identical letters, e.g., SHesh as part of SHishak. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> but not two letters of the same designation? But surely it was taught: [<i>If a soul shall sin unwittingly against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done,] and shall do of one [of them]</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 2; lit. translation. In a way, 'of' and 'one' are contradictory. since 'of' denotes a portion of an act, whereas 'one' implies a complete act. This is discussed here, the various views put forward really being attempts to harmonize the two. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> I might think that one must write the whole noun or weave a whole garment or make a whole sieve [before he is guilty]; hence 'of <i>one'</i> is stated. If <i>'of one'</i>, I might think that even if one writes only one letter or weaves a single thread or makes only one mesh of a sieve, [he is culpable];