Shabbat 206:1

ת"ל 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<i> 'one'</i> is stated. How is this [to be reconciled]? One is liable only if he writes a short noun [as part] of a long noun: SHeM as part of SHiMe'oN or SHeMU'eL, NoaH as part of NaHoR, DaN as part of DaNI'eL, GaD as part of GaDDI'eL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though examples of proper nouns are given, there is no reason for not assuming that the same does not apply to common nouns too, both here and in the Mishnah. ');">¹</span>

א"ר 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

R. Judah said: Even if one writes two letters of the same designation, he is liable: e.g., SHeSH, TeTH, RaR, GaG, HaH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are complete words in themselves, and also the beginnings of longer words. SHesh = linen; Teth = giving; Rar = flowing; Gag = roof; Hah = hook. ');">²</span>

רבי שמעון אומר (ויקרא ד, כב) ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את כל השם עד שיארוג כל הבגד עד שיעשה את כל הנפה ת"ל מאחת אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ואפילו לא ארג אלא חוט אחד ואפילו לא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה ת"ל אחת הא כיצד אינו חייב עד שיעשה מלאכה שכיוצא בה מתקיימת

Said R. Jose: Is he then guilty on account of writing? Surely he is guilty only on account of [making] a mark, because marks were made on [each of] the boards of the Tabernacle to know which was its companion. Therefore if one draws one line across two boards, or two lines on one board, he is culpable. R. Simeon said: 'And shall do one': I might think that one must write the whole noun or weave a complete garment or make a whole sieve [before he is liable]; therefore it is written, <i>'of one'</i>. If <i>of one</i>, I might think that even if one writes one letter only, or weaves one thread only, or makes one mesh only in a sieve, [he is guilty]: therefore <i>'one'</i> is stated. How is this [to be reconciled]? One is liable only when he performs an action the like of which stands [on its own].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 490, n. 2 on Mishnah supra 102b. ');">³</span>

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

R. Jose said: <i>'And shall do one, and shall to them'</i>: sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, at others one is liable for each separately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below. ');">⁴</span>

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 ב' אותיות והן שם אחד חייב כגון שש תת רר גג חח

Now it is incidentally taught, R. Judah said: Even if one only writes two letters of the same designation, he is liable? — There is no difficulty: one is his own [view], the other is his teacher's. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Gamaliel's name: Even if one only writes two letters of the sanie designation, he is liable, e.g., SHeSH, TeTH, RaR, GaG, HaH.

ור"ש היינו ת"ק וכ"ת אלף אלף (ישעיהו מה, ה) דאאזרך איכא בינייהו דת"ק סבר אלף אלף דאאזרך לא מיחייב ור"ש סבר כיון דאיתיה בגלטורי בעלמא חייב למימרא דר"ש לחומרא

Now R. Simeon, is he not identical with the first Tanna? And should you answer, they differ in respect of the <i>a'a</i> of<i> a'azzereka</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XLV, 5, E.V.: I will gird thee. The word commences with a double alef ([H]), and a double alef does not form an independent word. ');">⁵</span>

והתניא הקודח כל שהוא חייב המגרר כל שהוא המעבד כל שהוא הצר בכלי צורה כל שהוא רש"א עד שיקדח את כולו עד שיגרור את כולו עד שיעבד את כולו עד שיצור כולו

the first Tanna holding, [for writing] the <i>a'a</i> of <i>a'azzereka</i> one is not liable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not a word. ');">⁶</span>

אלא ר"ש הא אתא לאשמעינן עד שיכתוב את השם כולו ומי מצית אמרת הכי והתניא רש"א ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב את השם כולו ת"ל מאחת תריץ ואימא הכי יכול עד שיכתוב את הפסוק כולו ת"ל מאחת

while R. Simeon holds, Since it is contained in charms in general,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi. Tosaf., and R. Han. Jast.: since it has merely the value of a vowel letter. ');">⁷</span>

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

he is culpable, — shall we then say that R. Simeon is more stringent? Surely it was taught: He who bores, however little,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the wood is not pierced right through. ');">⁸</span>

א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא מ"ט דר' יוסי אחת מאחת הנה מהנה אחת שהיא הנה והנה שהיא אחת

he who scrapes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., hair off skin. ');">⁹</span>

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

however little, he who tans, however little, he who draws a figure on a vessel, however little, [is culpable]. R. Simeon said: [He is not culpable] unless he bores right through or scrapes the whole of it [the skin] or tans the whole of it or draws the whole of it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the entire figure which he intended to draw. This proves that he is more lenient. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול: מי דמי מ"ם דשם סתום מ"ם דשמעון פתוח אמר רב חסדא זאת אומרת סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

Rather R. Simeon comes to teach us this: [one is not guilty] unless he writes the whole word. But can you say so? Surely it was taught, R. Simeon said: 'And shall do one': you might think that one must write the whole word; therefore 'of one' is stated? — Answer and say thus: You might think that one must write a complete sentence, therefore 'of one' is stated.

מיתיבי (דברים ו, ט) 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

R. Jose said: '<i>And shall do one, and shall do them'</i>: sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, at others one is liable for each separately. Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, What is R. Jose's reason? <i>'One', 'of one', 'them', 'of them'</i>: [this implies] one may be the equivalent of many, and many may equal one. <i>'One'</i>, [i.e.,] SHiMe'oN; <i>'of one'</i>, [i.e.,] SHeM [as part] of SHiMe'oN; <i>'them'</i> [i.e.,] the principal labours; <i>'of them</i>:', the derivative labours. 'One is the equivalent of many' — awareness of the Sabbath coupled with unawareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours. 'Many may equal one' unawareness of the Sabbath coupled with awareness [of the forbidden nature of his] labours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 70a and b for notes. ');">¹¹</span>

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

R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND A SHORT NAME [FORMING PART] OF A LONG NAME. Are they then similar: the <i>mem</i> of SHeM is closed, whereas that of SHiMe'oN is open?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mem at the end of a word is written o (closed); in the middle it is written n (open). ');">¹²</span>

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירה אומר נאמר בשני ונסכיהם בששי ונסכיה בשביעי כמשפטם הרי מ"ם יו"ד מ"ם מים מכאן רמז לניסוך מים מן התור'

— Said R. Hisda: This proves that if a closed [<i>mem</i>] is written open,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a Scroll of the law, or in a mezuzah or phylacteries. ');">¹³</span>

ומדפתוח ועשאו סתום כשר סתום נמי סתום ועשאו פתוח כשר

it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when one writes [H] with a closed mem it is still possible to add thereto as it stands. ');">¹⁴</span>

מי דמי פתוח ועשאו סתום

An objection is raised: <i>U-kethabtam</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 9: E.V.: and thou shalt write them. ');">¹⁵</span> it must be <i>kethibah tammah</i> [perfect writing];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a play on u-kethabtam by dividing it into two words. ');">¹⁶</span> thus one must not write the <i>alef</i> as an <i>'ayyin</i>, the <i>'ayyin</i> as an<i> alef</i>, the<i> beth</i> as a<i> kaf</i>, or the<i> kaf</i> as a<i> beth</i>, the<i> gimmel</i> as a<i> zadde</i> or the<i> zadde</i> as a<i> gimmel</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original reads, the gamma, this being the ancient name of the letter. In the translation the modern name is used. ');">¹⁷</span> the<i> daleth</i> as a<i> resh</i> or the<i> resh</i> as a<i> daleth</i>, the <i>heh</i> as a<i> heth</i> or the<i> heth</i> as a<i> heh</i>, the <i>waw</i> as a<i> yod</i> or the<i> yod</i> as a <i>waw</i>, the<i> zayyin</i> as a<i> nun</i> or the<i> nun</i> as a<i> zayyin</i>, the<i> teth</i> as a<i> pe</i> or the<i> pe</i> as a<i> teth</i>, bent letters straight or straight letters bent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The medial forms of kaf, pe, zadde and nun are bent, thus: [H] the final forms are straight, thus: [H]. ');">¹⁸</span> the<i> mem</i> as a<i> samek</i> or the<i> samek</i> as a<i> mem</i>, closed [letters] open or open letters closed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the open and closed mem. — Thus this contradicts R. Hisda. ');">¹⁹</span> An open section [<i>parashah</i>] may not be written closed, nor a closed section open.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The parashiot (chapters or sections) are either open or closed, the nature of each parashoh being fixed by tradition. Maimonides and Asheri differ on the definition of 'open' and 'closed', but the present practice is this: Both an open and a closed parashah end in the middle of the line, but in an open one the next parashah commences on the following line, whereas in a closed parashah the next one commences on the same line after a short blank space. V.J.E. art. Scroll of the Law, XI, 192'f. ');">²⁰</span> If one writes it as the 'Song', or if one writes the 'Song' as the general text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Song refers to the two songs of Moses, Ex. XV, 1-18 and Deut. XXXII, 1-43. The first is written in the form of half bricks set over whole bricks, thus: [see fig. 1]. The second is written in seventy double half-columns, thus: [see fig. 2]. ');">²¹</span> or if one writes it without ink, or if one writes the 'Names'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the mentions' (of the Divine Name). ');">²²</span> in gold, they [the Scrolls thus written] must be 'hidden'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the technical term to indicate that a Scroll is unfit for public use and must be 'hidden', i.e., buried; v. Meg. 26b. ');">²³</span> — He [R. Hisda] holds with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Judah b. Bathyra said: In reference to the second [day] 'We-niskehem [<i>and their drink-offerings</i>]' is stated; in reference to the sixth, 'u-nesakehah [<i>and the drink-offerings thereof</i>]'; in reference to the seventh, 'ke-mishpatam [<i>after the ordinance</i>]':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXIX, 19, 31, 33. The reference is to the Feast of Tabernacles. ');">²⁴</span> this gives<i> mem</i>, <i>yod, mem</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking one letter out of each of these three words. ');">²⁵</span> [i.e.,] <i>mayim</i> [water], whence we have a Biblical intimation of the water libation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which took place on that Feast, v. Ta'an. 2b. For a description of the ceremony v. Suk. 48a and b. The sanctity of this ceremony was disputed by the Sadducees, as stated in the Mishnah a.l.; cf. also Josephus, Ant. XIII, 13, 5 and Halevy, Doroth, 1, 3, 480 seq. This may be the reason why R. Judah b. Bathyra sought a hint for it in the Bible. ');">²⁶</span> Now since if an open letter is written closed, it is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mem of we-niskehem, coming as it does at the end, is closed; but it is taken as the first letter of mayim, i.e., open; hence it follows that if an open letter is written closed the Scroll is fit. ');">²⁷</span> a closed [letter] is the same, [viz.,] if a closed letter is written open, it is fit. But how compare! If an open [letter] is written closed,