Talmud for Shabbat 206:11

⁶⁵Here starts discussion of Mishnah 3. It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”⁶⁶While this is in our Mishnah, the Halakhah presupposes a Mishnah which does not contain this clause. In the ms. it is an addition by the scribe on the margin. The clause also is missing in the Yerushalmi Mishnah edited by Lowe, in the Munich ms. of the Babli, and in the Merzbacher ms. of Alfasi. The clause is found in the Venice Babli, Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, and as baraita in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(4).. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent⁶⁷The examples of the Mishnah are badly chosen since graphically שם is not part of שמואל or שמעון, nor דן of דניאל. No answer is given to the question. It may be that the question is considered correct, it also may be that final forms of letters are considered optional for use also in the middle of words. This is S. Liebermann’s not universally accepted explanation (Tarbiz 4 p. 292) of a passage in Megillah 1:11 (71d l. 46). In any case, a final mem in the middle of a word is in the inscription of King Uziah’s ossuary (published by A. L. Sukenik, Tarbiz 2 p. 290 ff.) The question is a major problem for the Babli, 104a.? It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, e. g.⁶⁸Babli 103b; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(5)., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters⁶⁹The different letters. anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency⁷⁰In this and the following sentence, “leniency” has to be replaced by “stringency”. for Rebbi Jehudah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as it was stated⁷¹Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(4).: “I could think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, of one⁷²Lev. 4:2, introduction to the purification sacrifice of the anointed High Priest, Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(6).. If of one, I could think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, he did one⁷³Lev. 4:22, introduction to the purification sacrifice of the prince. It is presumed that the rules which trigger liability for a purification sacrifice are identical for everybody; therefore expressions used for different personalities have to be harmonized.. How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths⁵²שׁוֹבֵט is using a tool to keep the threads of the woof parallel to one another or press the threads of the warp down; מִקַטְקֵט is using hands to straighten the warp and preparing it for the next layer. The dictionaries do not mention the Yerushalmi form which might be related to Arabic قطقط “to drizzle”. a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand⁵³He makes liability not dependent on the use of a tool, only that it be skilled labor. Therefore also hitting with a hammer to get the correct rhythm for work induces liability..” And here because he equalizes with his hand⁷⁴The question is difficult to understand since (1) both the baraita from Sifra and the one quoted from the discussion of Mishnah 2 are anonymous and (2) they are consistent in that they declare liability for minimal work if the results have permanence.
R. Jehudah requires the written letters to form an intelligible word, to be a completed action. In Sifra, the baraita 1(4) is anonymous but the quote of R. Jehudah in 1(5) also serves to underline R. Jehudah’s consistency, for which he deserves praise..