Shabbat 205:1

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:

HE WHO BORES A HOLE, HOWEVER LITTLE, IS CULPABLE. As for Rab, it is well: it looks like boring a hole for a building. But according to Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that boring a hole is not building. ');">¹</span> [surely] this is not a completion of work?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the hole must be filled up subsequently. ');">²</span>

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

— The meaning here is that he pierces it with an iron pick and leaves it therein, so that that is the completion of its work. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE. What does THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE add?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a rule that this phrase always adds something not explicitly mentioned. ');">³</span>

רשב"ג 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 רשב"ג אומר אף המכה בקורנס על הסדן בשעת מלאכה חייב שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן:

— It adds the case of hollowing out a kapiza in a <i>kab</i> measure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kapiza was a small measure, less than a kab. If one hollows out a kapiza in a block of wood that is large enough for a kab, one might think that this labour is incomplete for he will probably enlarge it subsequently to a kab. Therefore the general principle is stated to teach that this is a complete labour. On the size of a kapiza v. J.E. XII, 488 I; and 489 Table. ');">⁴</span> R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: HE TOO IS CULPABLE WHO BEATS WITH THE SLEDGE-HAMMER ON THE ANVIL, etc. What does he do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does this constitute a labour? ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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:

— Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: Because he trains his hand. The sons of Rahabah found this difficult: if so, if one sees a labour [being performed] on the Sabbath and he learns it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Merely by watching. ');">⁶</span> is he really culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למאי חזי חזי לביזרא דקרא דכוותה גבי משכן שכן ראוי לקלח אחד של סמנין:

— But Abaye and Raba both say: Because those who beat out the [metal] plates of the Tabernacle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For covering the altar. ');">⁸</span> did thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They beat the anvil occasionally, that it might present a smooth surface for the metal plates. ');">⁹</span>

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

It was taught likewise: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Also he who beats with the sledge-hammer on the anvil at the time of his work is culpable, because those who beat out the [metal] plates of the Tabernacle did thus. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO PLOUGHS, HOWEVER LITTLE, HE WHO WEEDS AND HE WHO TRIMS [TREES],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By lopping off dead branches, etc. ');">¹⁰</span>

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:

AND HE WHO CUTS OFF YOUNG SHOOTS, HOWEVER LITTLE, IS CULPABLE. HE WHO GATHERS TIMBER: IF IN ORDER TO EFFECT AN IMPROVEMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., he cuts off branches or twigs to allow of a more vigorous growth. ');">¹¹</span> [THE STANDARD OF CULPABILITY IS] HOWEVER LITTLE; IF FOR FUEL, AS MUCH AS IS REQUIRED FOR BOILING A LIGHT EGG. IF ONE COLLECTS GRASS, IF TO EFFECT AN IMPROVEMENT, [THE STANDARD OF CULPABILITY IS] HOWEVER LITTLE; IF FOR AN ANIMAL['S FODDER], A KID'S MOUTHFUL.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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 א"ר יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is it fit for?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. ploughing very little. ');">¹²</span> — It is fit for [planting] the seeds of a pumpkin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. and MS.M.: as a cavity for a pumpkin. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא אימין ליחייב משום דדרך כתיבה בכך אלא אשמאל אמאי הא אין דרך כתיבה בכך א"ר ירמיה באטר יד שנו ותהוי שמאל דידיה כימין דכ"ע ואשמאל ליחייב אימין לא ליחייב אלא אמר אביי בשולט בשתי ידיו

Similarly in respect to the Tabernacle, [such a labour was performed] because it is fit for one stalk of [vegetable] dyes. HE WHO WEEDS AND HE WHO TRIMS [TREES] AND HE WHO CUTS OFF YOUNG SHOOTS. Our Rabbis taught: He who plucks endives and he who cuts greens [shoots],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When very young these are fit for human consumption; a little later they are only fit for animals, and still later, when more hardened, they are used as fuel. ');">¹⁴</span>

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

if for [human] consumption, [the standard of culpability is] the size of a dried fig; is for animal [food], a kid's mouthful; if for fuel, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; if in order to improve the soil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To leave room for expansion for the other plants. ');">¹⁵</span> however little. Are not all in order to improve the soil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is their effect, whatever the intention. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ר יהודה מצינו: אלא ר' יהודה שתי אותיות והן שני שמות הוא דמחייב שתי אותיות והן שם אחד לא מחייב

Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: They [the Sages] learnt this of an uncleared field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the improvement is unnecessary. ');">¹⁷</span> Abaye said: You may even say [that they spoke] of a field that is not uncleared, but in a case where he has no intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of improving the soil. ');">¹⁸</span>

והתניא (ויקרא ד, כב) ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב כל השם ועד שיארוג כל הבגד ועד שיעשה כל הנפה ת"ל מאחת

But surely Abaye and Raba both said, R. Simeon admits in a case of, 'cut off his head but let him not die'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. 75a. This too is inevitable. ');">¹⁹</span> This holds good only when he works in his neighbour's field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has no interest in his neighbour's field, the inevitable improvement is disregarded. ');">²⁰</span>

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. ');">²¹</span> OR IN TWO PIGMENTS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one letter in black and one in red. ');">²²</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. ');">²³</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. ');">²⁴</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. ');">²⁵</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. ');">²⁶</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. ');">²⁷</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. ');">²⁸</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];