## Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat Chapter 12

###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:1)

**משנה:** הַבּוֹנֶה כַּמָּה יִבְנֶה וִיהֵא חַיָיב. הַבּוֹנֶה כָל שֶׁהוּא. הַמְסַתֵּת וְהַמַּכֶּה בַפַּטִּישׁ וּבַמַּעֲצָד הַקּוֹדֵחַ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּמְלַאכְתּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הַמַּכֶּה בַקּוּרְנָס עַל הַסַּדָּן בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִמְתַקֵּן מְלָאכָה:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** How much would a builder build to become liable? One who builds anything. One who chisels stone, and one who hits with a hammer or a hatchet¹, or who drills anything is liable. This is the principle: Anybody who performs work on the Sabbath and whose work has permanence is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also one who hits with the back of his hammer on the anvil during work is liable because he improves the work² Chapter 4, Note 58..

footnotes:
¹ This one does not produce anything, but simply marks the end of the production process; cf. Chapter 7, Note 7.
² A smith is used to hit also on an empty anvil to keep up the rhythm of his work. For the word קורנס cf. Avodah zarah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַבּוֹנֶה כַּמָּה יִבְנֶה וִיהֵא חַיָיב כול׳. מַה בִּנְיָין הָיָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהְיוּ נוֹתְנִין קְרָשִׁים עַל גַּבֵּי אֲדָנִים. וְלֹא לְשָׁעָה הָיְתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹסְעִים וְחוֹנִים עַל פִּי הַדִּיבֵּר כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא לְעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִבְטִיחָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיסָן לָאָרֶץ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא לְעוֹלָם. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ מִן הַצַּד. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ נָתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי דָּבָר אַחֵר. הָדָא אָמְרָה. בִּינְיָין עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים בִּנְיָין. אֲדָנִים בַּקַּרְקַע הֵן.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “How much would a builder build to become liable,” etc. ²¹ What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases. But was this not temporary? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, it was as though permanent. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that He would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. This implies, even from the side. This implies even if it was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building? The bases are like soil.

footnotes:
²¹ This text is from Chapter 7, Notes 437–446.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:3)

תֵּנֵּי. אֶחָד מֵבִיא אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְאֶחָד מֵבִיא אֶת הַטִּיט. הַמֵּבִיא אֶת הַטִּיט חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָיבִין. סָבַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֶבֶן בְּלֹא טִיט בִּנְיָין. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם נָתַן אֶת הַטִּיט תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן אֶת הָאֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. הַבַּנַּאי שֵׁיִּישֵׁב אֶת הָאֶבֶן בְּרֹאשׁ הַדִּימוֹס חַיָיב. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרַבָּנִן. וְהָהֵן דַּעֲבַד דַּפִּין וְהָהֵן דַּעֲבַד סַפְיָין. חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rebbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks or one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:4)

וְהָהֵן דְּנָקַר כֵּיפִין כַּפִּין עֲמוּדִין רֵחַיִין. מְקַטֵּעַ פְּסֵפָס. מְקַטֵּעַ בּוּלִין. חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם מְסַתֵּת. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַמַּרְכִּיב מִיטָּה שֶׁלְּגִילָה חַיָיב מִשׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְנוֹטֵל מַלְבֵּן וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי לְבֵינִים בַּשַּׁבָּת. רַב הַמְנוּנָא הוֹרֵי לְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לְהַתִּיר שׁוּלְחָן שֶׁלִּפְרָקִים בַּשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר. רַב חוּנָה בַּר חִיָיה הֲוָה עִימֵּיהּ. שָׁמַע רַב יְהוּדָה וְאָמַר. מָאן דְּהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ לָא יְלִף וְלָא שִׁימֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. מָאן דְּהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹרֵי לֵיהּ. דְּתַנֵּי. לְוָוחִים שֶׁבַּסְּפִינָה וְשֶׁבָּעֲרִיסָה וְנַקְלִיטֵי הַמִּיטָּה וְרֶגֶל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְיַד הַסַּכִּין שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֵזִיר. אִם הֶחֱזִיר הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר. וְאִם תָּקַע הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אִם הָיוּ רָפִים נוֹטֵל וּמַחֲזִיר. תַּנֵּי. תְּקוּעִים חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה וּלְהַזָּיָיה. קְּבוּעִים חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה וְאֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר לְהַזָּאָה. הַנּוֹטְלִין וְהַנּוֹתְנִין אֵינָן חִיבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְהַזָּיָיה. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן דַּרְכָּן לְקֶבַע. לֹא לְקֶבַע אֵינָן חִיבּוּר. בְּרַם הָכָא תְּקִיעָתָן הִיא גְּמַר מְלַאכְתָּן.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars²², millstones, or splits mosaic stones²³, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed²⁴ p. 46 Note 6). In the Babli, 46b, the ms. sources give ,גלילתא, גלניתא, גלגניתא, ed. Bomberg גללניתא. The word also could describe a bed on wheels. In any case it is a bed which can be assembled and disassembled without any tools. {Cf. Greek κᾶλον, τό, “wood” (E. G.).} is liable because of building. Rebbi Zeˋura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath²⁵. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Jehudah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rebbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed²⁶, and the leg of a table²⁷, and the handle on the top of a knife one shall not return²⁸ but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed²⁹ in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated³⁰ˋ 8:4.: “Stuck together³¹ they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture³².

footnotes:
²² He chisels a pillar out of a rock.
²³ Greek ψῆφος, ἡ.
²⁴ This translation is a conjecture of R. Rabbinovicz (Diqduqe Soferim Šabbat
²⁵ Since the notion of building is not applicable to implements.
²⁶ Greek τὰ ἀνάκλιτα “what is leaning to”, two posts at head and end of the bed which hold a rod over which the mosquito net is spread.
²⁷ Which can be disassembled.
²⁸ Since one makes usable what was not usable at the start of the Sabbath.
²⁹ If appropriately shaped pieces of wood (or in the case of the knife, metal and wood) are fitted together so that they become usable implements for permanent use without nails or glue, this is professional work and biblically forbidden. If the connection is not permanent, no biblical precept is violated.
³⁰ Tosephta Kelim Bava meṣia
³¹ Pieces of wood permanently stuck together form one piece. If any part becomes impure, the entire vessel is impure. If drops of water with ashes of the Red Cow are sprinkled on a part, it counts for the entire vessel. But if pieces of wood are nailed together, impurity spreads from one part to the other but sprinkling must be done for each part separately.
³² For the rules of the Sabbath the rules of impurity are irrelevant. If pieces of wood are stuck together it is a case of “hitting with a hammer” since the result is permanent.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:5)

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי סִימַיי אוֹמֵר. הַמַּרְכִּיב קֶרֶן עֲגוּלָה חַיָיב. קֶרֶן פְּשׁוּטָה פָטוּר. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. קְנֵי מְנוֹרָה חַיָיב. קָנֶה שֶׁלְּצַיָידִין (שֶׁלְּסַיָידִין) פָּטוּר. קְנֵי מְנוֹרָה לָמָּה הוּא חַיָיב. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב חוּנָה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. קָנֶה שֶׁלְּצַיָידִין לָמָּה הוּא פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי הַחוֹפֵר בַּחוֹלוֹת הֲרֵי מִלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן הוּא. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יוּדָן. כָּאן לְשָׁעָה כָאן לִשְׁהוֹת.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
It was stated³³-*Fshutah Moed* pp. 194–195), Babli 47a; partially *Deut*. *rabba* 3.: “Rebbi Simai said, one who assembles a curved horn³⁴ 11:7). These horns are composed of parts; curved horns can be made only by craftsmen but straight horns (shepherd’s flutes) are easily put together by anybody. While the Babli does not recognize any building with implements and defines the liabilities noted in the Tosephta as “hitting with a hammer” (Rashi in Babli 47a), the Yerushalmi considers manufacturing which requires tools and skilled labor as building. is liable, with a straight horn he is not liable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, for the arms of a candelabra³⁵ he is liable; for a hunter’s (whitewasher’s)³⁶. A person whitewashing a wall will lengthen his rod to avoid using a ladder; this does not need any tools and is temporary. rod he is not liable.” Why is he liable for the arms of a candelabra? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥuna both say, because of building. Why is he not liable for a hunter’s rod? Because it is from top to bottom. They objected, does not one who digs in the dunes work from top to bottom, and you are saying that he is liable³⁷? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, here temporarily, there permanent³⁸.

footnotes:
³³ Tosephta 12:14 (ed. Liebermann; cf. Tosefta ki
³⁴ A musical instrument (Geonic commentary to Kelim
³⁵ This also is both skilled work and intended to be permanent.
³⁶ “Hunters” ציידין is the scribe’s text (as well as two Tosephta mss.), “whitewashers” סיידין a gloss in the margin by the scribe’s own hand, the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta, and the Venice Babli (other Babli texts have סייארין, ציארין). All these texts probably read צ as ss
³⁷ If building is only making a structure against gravity then digging a cave in a dune or a mine shaft should be permitted on the Sabbath. It is asserted that these activities are a Sabbath violation.
³⁸ The prior argument is dismissed. Building needs tools and permanence.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:6)

שְׁמוּאֵל אוֹמֵר. הַמַּלְחִים אֵת הַתִּירְצִין חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. וְקַשְׁיָא. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב חַטָּאת בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִתִּירוּ סוֹפוֹ מִפְּנֵי תְחִילָּתוֹ. שֶׁאִם אֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ פּוֹתֵחַ. וְלֹא יִפְתַּח. אַף הוּא מְמָעֵט בְּשִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מַחֲזִיר. בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר כָּל צָרְכוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן. כְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם פֶּתַח. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם פֶּתַח מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
³⁹ 1:5 and refers to Mishnah *Beṣah* 1:5: “The House of Shammai say, one may not remove store shutters on a holiday but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.” The text is not the scribe’s, but was added by the first corrector from a different ms.
The subject is a grocery store protected by an iron shutter which may be turned around an axle and serve as store counter. In the absence of refrigeration it may be essential for people to be able to buy food on holidays; this is permitted as long as no money changes hands on the holiday, no written records are made, nor is there exact weighing and measuring . Babli *Beṣah* 11b. Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters⁴⁰ is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice⁴¹ the House of Hillel permit to restore⁴²? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely⁴³. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door⁴⁴.

footnotes:
³⁹ This text is from Beṣah
⁴⁰ Modern Hebrew (Babli spelling) תריס. Greek θυρεός, ὁ “shield, armor”. Here again ס and צ are interchangeable.
⁴¹ Following Samuel.
⁴² On the holiday.
⁴³ Then the work is not professional and comparable to writing with the back of one’s hand.
⁴⁴ If customers can have access to the store without the owner removing the shutters, the House of Hillel will agree that the emergency permit is not valid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:7)

מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנִּי. הַגּוֹרֵד הַקּוֹדֵחַ הַקּוֹצֵץ כָּל שֶׁהוּא בַשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַגּוֹרֵד עַד שֶׁיִּגּוֹר כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ. הַקּוֹדֵחַ עַד שֶׁיִּקְדַּח כָּל צָרְכוֹ. הַקּוֹצֵץ עַד שֶׁיְּקַצֵּץ כָּל צָרְכוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד אֶת הָעוֹר עַד שֶׁיְּעַבֵּד כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. לֹא אַתְיָא אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא עָבַד מִקְצַת מְלָאכָה כְכוּלָּהּ. וְרַבָּנִן עָבְדִין מִקְצַת מְלָאכָה כְכוּלָּהּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁴⁶6:1, 33b l. 10. The origin is here. The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon’s, as it was stated⁴⁷: “One who scratches⁴⁸, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rebbi Simeon says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rebbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work⁴⁹.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ The paragraph is copied in Pesaḥim
⁴⁷ Tosephta 11:3 (ed. Liebermann).
⁴⁸ One scratches off dirt from one’s shoes on a rainy Sabbath (Tosephta 16:19, ed. Liebermann) or slags from a work-piece in preparation of use or sale.
⁴⁹ The problem is the interpretation of the statement: “Anybody who performs work on the Sabbath and whose work has permanence is liable.” For R. Simeon the work has permanence only if it does not need to be reworked; for the rabbis it has permanence if it cannot be undone. One might read the entire paragraph as a question: is the Mishnah R. Simeon’s? R. Jacob bar Aḥa answers in the negative since even a small hole drilled cannot be undone and causes liability according to the rabbis.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:1:8)

וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אִילּוּ נָטַל לִקְצוֹר וְלֹא קָצַר שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָדָא. אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְתַנֵּי. הַשׁוֹבֵט וְהַמְקַטְקֵט עַל הָאָרִיג הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִמְיַישֵּׁב בְּיָדוֹ. וְהָכָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִמְיַישֵּׁב בְּיָדוֹ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything⁵⁰? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated⁵¹: “One who hits or smooths⁵² a piece of weaving is liable because he equalizes with his hand⁵³.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ Why should hitting with a hammer on an empty anvil cause liability when nothing was accomplished by the action?
⁵¹ Babli 75b. There one reads מדקדק instead of מקטקט.
⁵² שׁוֹבֵט 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”.
⁵³ He 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:2:1)

**משנה:** הַחוֹרֵשׁ כָּל שֶׁהוּא הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמְקַרְסֵם וְהַמְזָרֵד כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. הַמְלַקְּט עֵצִים לְתַקֵּן כָּל שֶׁהֵן. אִם לְהַסִּיק כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל בֵּיצָה קַלָּה. הַמְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂבִים לְתַקֵּן כָּל שֶׁהֶן אִם לַבְּהֵמָה כִּמְלוֹא פִי גְדִי:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** He who ploughs any amount, who weeds, who prunes, or who thins³ anything is liable. One who collects wood, if to improve in any amount, or if as firewood to cook an easily cooked egg⁴. One who collects grasses, if to improve in any amount, if for animals to fill a kid goat’s mouth⁴.

footnotes:
³ Pruning is of last year’s growth, thinning is from new growth.
⁴ One has to add, “is liable”. An easily cooked egg is a chicken egg.
⁴ One has to add, “is liable”. An easily cooked egg is a chicken egg.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:2:2)

**הלכה:** ב׳. מַה חֲרִישָׁה הָיְתָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהָיוּ חוֹרְשִׁין לִיטַּע סִימְמָנִין. וְכַמָּה יַחֲרוֹשׁ וִיהֵא חַיָיב. רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה אָמַר. כְּדֵי לִיטַּע כְּרֵישָׂה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. כְּדֵי לִיטַּע זִכְרוּתָהּ שֶׁלְּחִיטָּה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** 2. ⁵⁴ What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ Chapter 7, Notes 224–226.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:2:3)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. זֶרַע קִישּׁוּאִין שְׁנַיִם. זֶרַע דִּילוּעִין שְׁנַיִם. תַּנֵּי. חִטִּים מָדִיּוֹת שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. חִטִּין עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן חֲבִיבוֹת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּשְׁאַר זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:2:4)

לָמָּהָ לִי לְתַקֵּן כָּל שֶׁהוּא. לָמָּה לִי כִּמְלוֹא פִי גְדִי.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Why do I need “to improve in any amount,” why do I need “to fill a kid goat’s mouth”⁵⁵?

footnotes:
⁵⁵ It teaches nothing that could not be inferred from Mishnah 7:4.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:3:1)

**משנה:** הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בֵּין בִּימִינוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ בֵּין מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בֵּין מֵשְּׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת בֵּין מִשְּׁנֵי סֵימָנִיּוֹת בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן חַיָיב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם רוֹשֶׁם שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ רוֹשְׁמִין עַל קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן לֵידַע אֵי זֶהוּ בֶן זוּגוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מָצִינוּ שֵׁם קָטָן מִשֵּׁם גָּדוֹל שֵׁם מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמִשְּׁמוּאֵל נֹחַ מִנָּחוֹר. דָּן מִדָּנִיֵּאל גָּד מִגַּדִּיאֵל:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** One who writes two letters is liable, whether with his right hand, or with his left hand⁵, whether of one denomination or of two denominations⁶, whether two signs of any language⁷. Rebbi Yose said, two letters create liability only as signs since they were making signs on the planks to know which belongs to which⁸. Rebbi Jehudah said, we find a short name from a long name, Sem from Simeon, Noah fron Naḥor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gadiel⁹.

footnotes:
⁵ Even though the person is right handed it is not too difficult for him to write with his left hand.
⁶ The same letter twice or two different letters.
⁷ In any alphabet, not necessarily Hebrew.
⁸ Any sign (Greek σημεῖον, τό) which can be used to identify an object he considers to be the equivalent of a letter.
⁹ In his opinion, only combinations of letters which make sense are counted as writing.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:3:2)

**הלכה:** ג׳. מָאן תַּנָּא. סִימְיוֹנוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מָהוּ בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן. אֲפִילוּ אֲלֵף אַלְפָא. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן שֶׁלְּמַטָּן לְמַעֲלָן שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן. כְּמִין קוֹלְמוֹסִין הָיוּ עֲשׂוּיִין. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן שֶׁבִּפְנִים בַּחוּץ וְשֶׁבַּחוּץ בִּפְנִים. טַבָּעוֹת הָיוּ מוּכִיחוֹת. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא יַחֲלִיף. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. לוֹכְסָן הָיָה כָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן. וְיַחֲלִיף. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. וַהֲקֵמוֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ. וְכִי יֵשׁ מִשְׁפָּט לָעֵצִים. אֶלָּא אֵי זֶה קֶרֶשׁ זָכָה לְהִינָּתֵן בַּצָּפוֹן יִינָּתֵן בַּצָּפוֹן. בַּדָּרוֹם יִינָּתֵן בַּדָּרוֹם.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** 3. Who taught “signs”⁵⁶? Rebbi Yose! What means “of any language”? Even אα⁵⁷. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them upside down or bottom up⁵⁸? They were made similar to reed pens⁵⁹. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them inside out or outside in? The rings⁶⁰ did prove. Should one not be concerned that maybe one would exchange? Rebbi Aḥa said, it was written slanted⁶¹. Why could they not be switched? Rebbi Immi said, *You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling*⁶². 26:30.. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Writing is forbidden even if no letters are formed. Babli 103a.
⁵⁷ The two letters do not have to be from the same alphabet.
⁵⁸ Why is there a Sabbath violation only if two letters were written? R. Yose in the Mishnah reasons that the only writing in the construction of the Tabernacle was of signs which showed how the planks of the tabernacle had to be fitted together. This necessitates corresponding signs on adjacent planks, more than one at a time. Now it is asked whether not every single plank (which was a rectangular piece of wood 10 by 1/2 cubits) needed a sign which indicated what was top and what bottom? Then writing a single letter would be a Sabbath violation.
⁵⁹ Thick at the bottom, thin at the top. In the Babli (98a) this is a matter of controversy.
⁶⁰ Through which the interlocking rods were put. They all had to be on the same side.
⁶¹ The corresponding signs on two adjacent planks were written at different heights and slanted so that they sat on one line only if the planks were correctly situated.
⁶² Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:3:3)

אִילִּין דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה וּדְבַר פָּזִי הֲווֹן שְׁאֵלִין בִּשְׁלָמֵיהּ דִּנְשִׂיָיא בְּכָל יוֹם. וַהֲווֹן אִילֵּין דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה עֲלִין קַדְמַאי וְנָפְקִין קַדְמַאי. אָזְלִין אִילֵּין דְּבַר פָּזִי וְאִיתְחַתְּנוּן בִּנְשִׂיאוּתָא. אֲתוֹן בְּעָיָין מֵיעוֹל קַדְמַאי. אִישְׁתָּאִלַת לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי אִימִּי. וַהֲקֵמוֹתָ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ. וְכִי יֵשׁ מִשְׁפָּט לָעֵצִים. אֶלָּא אֵי זֶה קֶרֶשׁ זָכָה לְהִינָּתֵן בַּצָּפוֹן יִינָּתֵן בַּצָּפוֹן. בַּדָּרוֹם יִינָּתֵן בַּדָּרוֹם.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁶³ 3:7, Notes 328–336. Those of Rebbi Hoshaia and those of Bar Pazi went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rebbi Hoshaia went in first and left first. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rebbi Immi who said to them: *You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling*⁶¹. Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

footnotes:
⁶³ The following two paragraphs are from Horaiot
⁶¹ The corresponding signs on two adjacent planks were written at different heights and slanted so that they sat on one line only if the planks were correctly situated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:3:4)

תְּרֵין זַרְעִיין הֲווֹן בְּצִיפֹּרִין בּוּלֶוּוטַיָּא וּפָגָנָיָּא. הֲווֹן שְׁאֵלִין בִּשְׁלָמֵיהּ דִּנְשִׂיָיא בְּכָל יוֹם. וַהֲווֹן בּוּלֶוּוטַיָּא עֲלִין קַדְמַיי וְנָפְקִין קֵדְמַיי. אָזְלוֹן פָּגָנָיָיא וְזָכוֹן בָּאוֹרַיְתָא. אֲתוֹן בָּעוּ מֵיעוֹל קַדְמַיי. אִישְׁתָּאִלַת לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. שָׁאֲלָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עֲאַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרָשָׁהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרָשָׁא דְרִבִּי בְנָיָיה. אֲפִילוּ מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ. מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. לִפְּדוֹת וְלִכְסוּת וּלְהַחֲיוֹת. הָא לִישִׁיבָה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. אַף לִישִׁיבָה. מַה טַעֲמָא. יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים. אֲפִילוּ מִזֶּה שֶׁהוּא נִכְנַס לִפְנַיי לְפְנִים.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for clothing, and for livelihood, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abbin said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? *It is more precious than pearls*⁶³ 3:7, Notes 328–336., even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

footnotes:
⁶³ The following two paragraphs are from Horaiot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:3:5)

תַּנֵּי. וְגַד מִגַּדִּיאֵל. מֵתִיבִין לְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַהֲלֹא אֵילּוּ פְשׁוּטִים וְאֵילּוּ כְפוּפִים. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּתַב שְׁנֵי אוֹתוֹת שָׁוִים וְהֵן שֵׁם חַיָיב. כְּגוֹן שש תת גג רר חח. וְרַבָּנִן אָמְרֵי. שְׁתֵּי אוֹתוֹת בְּכָל מָקוֹם. אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. קַלַּת וְחוֹמְרַת עַל דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. קַלַּת וְחַמְרַת עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. קַלַּת עַל דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּתַב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת שָׁוִין וְהֵן שֵׁם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה חַיָיב. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פָּטוּר. קַלַּת עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. שְׁתֵּי אוֹתוֹת מִכָּל מָקוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֵׁם. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן חַיָיב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה פָּטוּר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אֶת כָּל הַשֵּׁם. עַד שֶׁיֶּאֱרוֹג אֶת כָּל הַבֶּגֶד. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת כָּל הַנָּפָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. מֵאַחַת. אִי מֵאַחַת יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ כָתַב אוֹת אַחַת. אֲפִילוּ אָרַג חוּט אֶחָד. אֲפִילוּ עָשָׂה בַיִת אֶחָד בְּנָפָה וּבְכַבָּרָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעָשָׂה אַחַת. הָא כֵיצַד. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה שֶׁכְּיוֹצָא בָּהּ מִתְקַיֶימֶת. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. הַשׁוֹבֵט וְהַמְקַטְקֵט עַל הָאָרִיג הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְיַישֵּׁב בְּיָדוֹ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁶⁵ It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel”⁶⁶ in *Sifra Ḥovah* *(Wayyiqra II) Pereq* 1(4).. They objected to Rebbi Jehudah, are not these straight and those bent⁶⁷ 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.⁶⁸ *(Wayyiqra II)* *Pereq* 1(5)., חָח ,רָר ,גַּג ,תֵּת ,שָׂשׂ. But the rabbis, two letters⁶⁹ anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rebbi Jehudah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency⁷⁰ 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 stated⁷¹ *(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 one*⁷². 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 one*⁷³. 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 smooths⁵² a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand⁵³.” And here because he equalizes with his hand⁷⁴ 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..

footnotes:
⁶⁵ Here starts discussion of Mishnah 3.
⁶⁶ While 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
⁶⁷ The 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
⁶⁸ Babli 103b; Sifra Ḥovah
⁶⁹ The different letters.
⁷⁰ In this and the following sentence, “leniency” has to be replaced by “stringency”.
⁷¹ Sifra Ḥovah
⁷² Lev
⁷³ Lev
⁵² שׁוֹבֵט 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”.
⁵³ He 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.
⁷⁴ The question is difficult to understand since (1) both the baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:4:1)

**משנה:** הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד חַיָיב. כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ בְּסַם בְּסִיקְרָא בְּקוֹמוֹס וְקַלְקַנְתּוֹס וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם עַל שְׁנֵי כוֹתְלֵי הַבַּיִת וְעַל שְׁנֵי דַפֵּי פִּינַקְס וְהֵן נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה חַיָיב. הַכּוֹתֵב עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ חַיָיב. וְהַמְסָרֵט עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁע פּוֹטֵר:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** One who writes two letters in one oblivion is liable. He is liable if he wrote in ink, by chemicals¹⁰, in vermilion, with gum¹¹, with vitriol of copper¹², with anything which leaves a record, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden book¹³ if they can be read together. One who writes on his body is liable. If he scratches¹⁴ on his flesh, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.

footnotes:
¹⁰ According to Rashi yellow arsenic, according to Maimonides any coloring derived from roots.
¹¹ Greek κίμμι, τό.
¹² Greek χάλκανθος, ὁ, ἡ.
¹³ Greek πίναξ, -ακος, ὁ.
¹⁴ Without drawing blood, which would be a Sabbath violation of a different category.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:4:2)

**הלכה:** ד. כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ עַל עֲלֵי יְרָקוֹת. בְּמַשְׁקִין וּבְמֵי פֵירוֹת עַל הַלּוּח. פָּטוּר. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקַיְימַא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקַיְימַא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בְּטִיבֵּרִיָּא וְאוֹת אַחַת בְּצִיפֹּרִין חַיָיב. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אִם אֵינָן נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּסְרָרָה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material⁷⁵. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable⁷⁶. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”⁷⁷? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, ⁷⁸, R. Vidal of Toulouse on Maimonides 11:12) all read בסיד “with lime”. S. Liebermann proposes to read בְסִדְרָה “in sequence”, making the statement of the Yerushalmi identical with Rashi’s explanation in the Babli, *scil*, that the two letters were written on the same sheet in two different cities.בסררה.

footnotes:
⁷⁵ Cf. Tosephta 11:8 (ed. Liebermann).
⁷⁶ Babli 104b.
⁷⁷ If there is no liability if one writes two letters on walls in different rooms in the same house, there should be no liability if the letters were written in two different cities.
⁷⁸ As it stands, “in deviation”, the word makes no sense. The Medieval quotes (Rashba and Ritba on Babli 104b, Maggid Mishneh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:4:3)

עֵדִים שֶׁאֵינָן יוֹדְעִין לַחֲתוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּדְּיוֹ וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בְּסִיקְרָא. בְּסִיקְרָא וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בַּדְּיוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָנוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּהִילְכוֹת שַׁבָּת אָנוּ מַתִּירִין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אֶלָּא מֶבִיא נְיָיר חָלָק וּמְקָרֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין. וְלֹא כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. מַרְחִיב לִפְנֵיהֶן אֶת הַקֶּרַע. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָמְרִין. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּמַּיִם. אִם בָּא וְעִרְעֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל הָעוֹר בְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב חַיָיב. הָרוֹשֵׁם עַל הָעוֹר כְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב פָּטוּר. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַהֲלֹא בֶּן סַטְדָא לֹא הֵבִיא כְּשָׁפִים מִמִּצְרַיִם אֶלָּא בְכָךְ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטֶה אֶחָד אָנוּ מְאַבְּדִין כַּמָּה פִּיקְחִין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁷⁹ 2:3, explained there in Notes 57–61. If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid)⁸⁰ read: valid.. ⁸¹ to be adapted to the topic of Sabbath. Sketching on skin can be wiped off and is not permanent. The text in Tosephta 11:8 (ed. Liebermann) switches “liable” and “not liable”, probably incorrectly, cf. *Giṭṭin* Note 62.“If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt⁸², the Yerushalmi seems to have the same tradition. In some sources (listed in *Tosefta ki*-*Fshutah Šabbat* p. 180) the name is סטרא, which Lieberman suggests is σωτήρ “savior”, characterizing him as a false Messiah.? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones⁸³?”

footnotes:
⁷⁹ This paragraph also is in Giṭṭin
⁸⁰ With the text in Giṭṭin
⁸¹ This sentence is changed from Giṭṭin
⁸² In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 104b, Tosephta 11:15) this does not refer to writing on untanned hide but to writing on one’s own skin (Mishnah 4). Since these two sentences are not in Giṭṭin
⁸³ Since liability for erroneous acts means capital crime for intended actions. The definition of capital crime cannot be extended without a reliable tradition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:4:4)

כָּתַב. לֹא חֻקֵק. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַמַּטִּיף. כָּתַב. לֹא הַשׁוֹפֵךְ. וְכָתַב. לֹא חוֹקֵק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חוֹקֵק. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא חוֹקֵק. בְּבוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין דִּינָרָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ חוֹקֵק. כְּגוֹן הָהֵן פִּינַקְסָא. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַמַּטִּיף. רִבִּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי שָׁלוֹם וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. חַד אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא עִירֵב נְקוּדוֹת. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ עִירֵב נְקוּדוֹת. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַשׁוֹפֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּרַ בָּא. אִילֵּין בְּנֵי מַדִּינְחָא עָרוּמִין סַגִּין. כַּד חַד מִינְּהוֹן בָּעֵי מִשְׁלְחָה מִילָּה מִסְטֵרִיקוֹן לְחַבְרֵיהּ הוּא כְתַב בְּמִי מִילִין. וְהָהֵן דִּמְקַבֵּל כְּתָבַיָיא הוּא שׁוֹפֵךְ דְּיוֹ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֲפַץ וְהוּא קוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַׁבָּת מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרַוֵויהוֹן אָמְרִין. והוּא שֶׁכָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ חַיָיב. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מְשַׁרְשִׁיָּא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. חַיָיב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק וּמִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁸⁴ 2:3, explained there in Notes 45–55. The text there makes it clear that the statement of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish does not refer to the question asked about R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement but refers to Mishnah 5 which states that writing on top of writing does not induce liability.*He shall write*⁸⁵. 24:1,3. There it is emphasized twice that divorce can be effectuated only by a written document. In R. Aqiba’s system, the additional *vaw* in each case counts for an additional mention, so that in all the requirement of writing is mentioned 4 times. Once it is needed for the fact that it is required; the other three mentionings may be read as restrictions., not engrave. *And he shall write*, not dropping points. *He shall write*, not pouring. *He shall write*, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. *And he shall write*, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. *And he shall write*, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ A slightly truncated copy of a text in Giṭṭin
⁸⁵ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:5:1)

**משנה:** כָּתַב בְּמֵי מַשְׁקִין בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת בַּאֲבַק דְּרָכִים בַּאֲבַק סוֹפְרִים וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים פָּטוּר. לְאַחַר יָדוֹ בְּרַגְלוֹ בְּפִיו וּבְמַרְפְּקוֹ. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת סָמוּךְ לַכְּתָב כָּתַב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב נִתְכַּוֵון לִכְתּוֹב חֵית וְכָתַב שְׁנֵי זַיְינִין אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ וְאֶחָד בַּקּוֹרָה עַל שְׁנֵי כוֹתְלֵי הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵי דַפֵּי פִּינַקְס וְאֵין נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה פָּטוּר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת נוֹטָרִיקוֹן רַבִּי יְהושֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא מְחַיֵיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice¹⁵, with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow¹⁶; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing¹⁷, wrote over existing writing, intended to write ח and wrote זז¹⁸, one on the ground and one on a beam¹⁹, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation²⁰. Latin *scribere per notas* really means writing in cipher., Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

footnotes:
¹⁵ A drink close to colorless.
¹⁶ The kinds of writing are too unusual; they cannot be classified as work.
¹⁷ Even though now a word can be read that did not exist before, the minimum for liability is two letters.
¹⁸ Since he intended to write one letter only, there can be no liability since the criminal intent was missing (Chapter 1, Note 52).
¹⁹ One letter is static, the other may be removed with the beam. This case is parallel to the one where one writes one letter each on walls in different rooms, which cannot be read together at one time.
²⁰ Even though the letter is read as a word, it is only one letter. Writing shorthand in abbreviation was the principle of Tironian notes


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:5:2)

**הלכה:** ה׳. הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם וְנִתְכַּוֵון לִכְתוֹב יְהוּדָה וְשָׁכַח וְלֹא כָתַב דַּלֶּת. הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁם בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הוּא. מוֹחְקוֹ וּמְקַיְימוֹ הוּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מַעֲבִיר אֶת הַקּוֹלְמוֹס עָלָיו וּמְקַיְימוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵינוֹ כְתָב. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. כְּתָב הוּא. בְּשִׁיטָּתוֹ הֵשִׁיבוּהוּ. בְּשִׁיטָּתָךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. כְּתָב הוּא. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. הָא כְתָב כְּתָב הוּא. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. כְּתָב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב אֵינוֹ כְתָב. מָהוּ כְּתָב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב. חַד לְעֵיל מִן חַד.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** 5. ⁸⁶ 20a, *Sopherim* 5:3.“If he had to write the Name⁸⁷ but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There⁸⁸ Mishnah 5. While the statement is anonymous and therefore represents the majority opinion, since R. Jehudah is not on record to disagree one has to conclude that he agrees. A stronger argument can be made against the rabbis who in *Šabbat* declare writing on top of writing as nothing and in the matter of a scroll designate it only as undesirable, not invalid. he says, it is not writing. But here⁸⁹, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion⁹⁰. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There⁹¹ he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing⁹². What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other⁹³.

footnotes:
⁸⁶ Babli Giṭṭin
⁸⁷ The Tetragrammaton which may be written only in holy texts and only if the intention was that it should be holy.
⁸⁸ Here in Šabbat
⁸⁹ In the case of a biblical scroll where he agrees that the Name can be made legitimate by writing over writing.
⁹⁰ Since Mishnah 5 is anonymous, it certainly represents the rabbis’ opinion. They should have objected that his procedure is invalid. They note that for them the procedure is invalid but even for R. Jehudah it should at least he undesirable; he should not prescribe it.
⁹¹ For the scroll.
⁹² For the rules of the Sabbath.
⁹³ He never accepts writing on top of writing as valid under any circumstance. He proposes that the Name should be written a second time in the empty space between the lines, higher than the erroneous word.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:5:3)

מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָה. מֵאוֹת אַחַת אַתְּ לָמֵד כַּמָּה אוֹתוֹת.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
What is Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra’s reason⁹⁴? From one letter one may infer several letters.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ Who in the Mishnah under certain circumstances considers writing one letter as completed work for the rules of the Sabbath.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:6:1)

**משנה:** הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעְלֵימוֹת אֶחָד שַׁחֲרִית וְאֶחָד בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** One who wrote two letters in two periods of oblivion, one in the morning and one in the evening, Rabban Gamliel declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 12:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Shabbat/r/12:6:2)

**הלכה:** ו׳. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אִילּוּ קָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּשַׁחֲרִית וְכִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בָּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַיָיב. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין הֶעֱלֵימוֹת חוֹלְקוֹת כָּךְ לֹא יְצָרְפוּ. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל תַּמָּן. אֵין יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי מְלָאכָה. וְדִכְוָותָה. אֵין זָדוֹן לַָחֲצִי זַיִת. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּזָדוֹן וַחֲצִי זַיִת בִּשְׁגָגָה מְָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** 6⁹⁵. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable⁹⁶? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work⁹⁷, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine⁹⁸?

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Here starts discussion of the last Mishnah.
⁹⁶ It is clear that there is only one liability created for each work category during one period of oblivion. It seems illogical that Rabban Gamliel should combine actions occurring in different periods of oblivion.
⁹⁷ Since in the interval between the two periods of oblivion there was no liability, this interval is disregarded.
⁹⁸ If the question is not work on the Sabbath but eating forbidden food, would Rabban Gamliel combine intentional and unintentional acts? Since for the Sages they do not combine and practice does not follow Rabban Gamliel, no answer is given.