## Shabbat Daf 103a

###### Shabbat 103a:1
[Shabbat 103a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:1)

הַקּוֹדֵחַ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב — מֶיחְזֵי כְּמַאן דְּחַר חוֹרְתָא לְבִנְיָינָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל — לָאו גְּמַר מְלָאכָה הוּא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּבַזְעֵיהּ בְּרַמְצָא דְפַרְזְלָא וְשַׁבְקֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּויהּ, דְּהַיְינוּ גְּמַר מְלָאכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who drills a hole of any size is liable. Granted,** according **to Rav,** who said that one who makes a hole is liable due to the prohibited labor of building, here too, he should be liable because he **appears as one who is making a hole for** the purpose of **building. However,** according **to Shmuel,** drilling a hole is **not a completion of the labor.** The labor will be complete only when a stake or pin is inserted into the hole. Until he does so, he cannot be liable for completing the labor. The Gemara answers: **With what we are dealing here?** With a case **where one drilled a hole with an iron nail and left it inside** the surface in which he drilled the hole. **That is** considered **a completion of labor** because there is no intention to remove the nail from its hole.


###### Shabbat 103a:2
[Shabbat 103a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:2)

זֶה הַכְּלָל. ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ לְאֵתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוּיֵי דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **this is the principle:** Anyone who performs a prohibited labor and his labor endures on Shabbat is liable. The Gemara asks: **What does** the phrase: **This is the principle,** come **to include?** The Gemara explains: It comes **to include** a case **where one carved out** a vessel with a capacity of **half a *kav* [*kefiza*]** into a piece of wood **in** which it was possible to chisel a vessel with a capacity of **a** whole ***kav*.** Since this labor endures on Shabbat and it can be used, it is considered a complete labor and he is liable.


###### Shabbat 103a:3
[Shabbat 103a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:3)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַמַּכֶּה בְּקוּרְנָס עַל הַסַּדָּן כּוּ׳. מַאי קָעָבֵיד? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְאַמֵּן אֶת יָדוֹ. קָשׁוּ בָּהּ בְּנֵי רַחֲבָה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חֲזָא אוּמָּנוּתָא בְּשַׁבְּתָא וּגְמַר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמִיחַיַּיב? אֶלָּא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: שֶׁכֵּן מְרַדְּדֵי טַסֵּי מִשְׁכָּן עוֹשִׂין כֵּן. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּכֶּה בְּקוּרְנָס עַל הַסַּדָּן בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכֵּן מְרַדְּדֵי טַסֵּי מִשְׁכָּן עוֹשִׂין כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We also learned in the mishna that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** Even **one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer** is liable. The Gemara wonders: **What has he done** by striking the anvil that would render him liable? It was **Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said** in explanation: He is liable **because he trains his hand** for his work by striking the anvil. **The sons of** a man named **Raḥava** found **this** answer **difficult: If so, one who observed a craft** being performed **on Shabbat and learned** to perform that craft through observation, would **he also be liable?** Only one who performs an actual labor on Shabbat is liable. **Rather,** it was **Abaye and Rava who both said** in explanation: He is liable, **as those who flatten plates** of metal **for the Tabernacle do so.** They would strike the anvil with the sledgehammer in order to straighten the sledgehammer’s handle, which became crooked. **That was also taught** in a *baraita*. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who strikes an anvil with a sledgehammer during his labor is liable, as those who flatten plates** of metal **for the Tabernacle do so.**


###### Shabbat 103a:4
[Shabbat 103a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַחוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמְקַרְסֵם וְהַמְזָרֵד כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — חַיָּיב. הַמְלַקֵּט עֵצִים, אִם לְתַקֵּן — כׇּל שֶׁהֵן, אִם לְהֶיסֵּק — כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל בֵּיצָה קַלָּה. הַמְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂבִים, אִם לְתַקֵּן — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, אִם לִבְהֵמָה — כִּמְלֹא פִי הַגְּדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who plows** is liable for plowing **any amount** of land on Shabbat. **One who weeds** and removes grass on Shabbat, **and one who removes dry branches and who prunes any amount is liable.** With regard to **one who gathers wood, if** he did so **to enhance** the tree or the land, he is liable for **any amount; if** he did so **for fuel,** he is liable for collecting a measure **equivalent** to that which is used **to cook an easily** cooked **egg.** With regard to **one who gathers grass, if** he did so **to enhance** the plants or the land, he is liable for **any amount; if** he did so to feed **an animal,** he is liable for collecting a measure **equivalent to a goat’s mouthful.**


###### Shabbat 103a:5
[Shabbat 103a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמַאי חֲזֵי? חֲזֵי לְבִיזְרָא דְקַרָא. דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּן, שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לְקֶלַח אֶחָד שֶׁל סַמָּנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: For **what** use **is** plowing any amount of land **suited?** The Gemara answers: It is **suited** for **a** single **pumpkin seed.** The **corresponding** situation **in the Tabernacle** was **as it is suitable** for planting **a single stalk of herbs** to make dyes.


###### Shabbat 103a:6
[Shabbat 103a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:6)

הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמְקַרְסֵם וְהַמְזָרֵד. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַתּוֹלֵשׁ עוּלְשִׁין וְהַמְזָרֵד זְרָדִים, אִם לַאֲכִילָה — כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. אִם לִבְהֵמָה — כִּמְלֹא פִי הַגְּדִי. אִם לְהֶיסֵּק — כְּדֵי לְבַשֵּׁל בֵּיצָה קַלָּה. אִם לְיַיפּוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע — כׇּל שֶׁהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We also learned in the mishna: **One who weeds, and one who removes dry branches, and who prunes** any amount is liable. **The Sages taught** that in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who severs endives** that grow like weeds, **or who prunes reeds [*zeradim*]; if** he did so **for** human **consumption,** he is liable in the measure of **a fig-bulk; if** he did so **for animal** consumption, he is liable in a measure **equivalent to a goat’s mouthful. If** he did so **for fuel,** he is liable for severing a measure **equivalent** to that which is used **to cook an easily** cooked **egg. If** he did so **to enhance the land,** he is liable for **any amount.**


###### Shabbat 103a:7
[Shabbat 103a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:7)

אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לָא לְיַפּוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע נִינְהוּ? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בַּאֲגַם שָׁנוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּשָׂדֶה דְּלָאו אֲגַם, וּכְגוֹן דְּלָא קָמִיכַּוֵּין. וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָעָבֵיד בְּאַרְעָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Aren’t all these** done **to enhance the land?** Each stalk that a person uproots enhances the land. It was **Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said** in explanation: **They taught** this *baraita* **with regard to swampland,** where grass is not uprooted to enhance the land. **Abaye said: Even if you say** that the *baraita* is referring to **a field that is not a swampland,** it can be referring to **a case where one did not intend** to enhance the land. The Gemara asks: **However,** is it not **Abaye and Rava who both say** that **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that one is liable only for performing an intentional action, **concedes** that one is liable in a case of **cut off its head, will it not die?** In any case where the outcome is inevitable, as in this case where the land will be enhanced, one’s lack of intention does not exempt him. The Gemara answers: Abaye’s statement **was** only **necessary** in a case **where one did so on another’s land.** Since he did not intend for that outcome to eventuate and he derives no benefit from enhancing the land, he is not liable in that case.


###### Shabbat 103a:8
[Shabbat 103a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, בֵּין בִּימִינוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ, בֵּין מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בֵּין מִשְּׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת בֵּין מִשְׁתֵּי סַמָּנִיּוֹת, בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן — חַיָּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא חִיְּיבוּ שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם רוֹשֵׁם, שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתְבִין עַל קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן לֵידַע אֵיזוֹ בֶּן זוּגוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מָצִינוּ שֵׁם קָטָן מִשֵּׁם גָּדוֹל — ״שֵׁם״ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמִשְּׁמוּאֵל, ״נֹחַ״ מִנָּחוֹר, ״דָּן״ מִדָּנִיאֵל, ״גָּד״ מִגַּדִּיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who writes two letters** on Shabbat, **whether** he did so **with his right** hand **or his left, whether** they were **the same letter or two** different **letters, whether** he did so **using two** different types of **ink, in any language, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei said: One is deemed liable** for writing **two letters only due to marking, as they** would **write** symbols **on** adjacent **beams of the Tabernacle to know which** beam was another beam’s **counterpart. Rabbi Yehuda said: We found** that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote **a small name** that constituted part **of a longer name,** e.g., **Shem [*shin mem*] from** the name **Shimon** or **from Shmuel; Noaḥ [*nun ḥet*] from Naḥor; Dan [*dalet nun*] from Daniel; Gad [*gimmel dalet*] from Gaddiel.** In all of these cases, the first two letters of the longer name constitute the shorter name.


###### Shabbat 103a:9
[Shabbat 103a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא אַיָּמִין לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם דְּדֶרֶךְ כְּתִיבָה בְּכָךְ, אֶלָּא אַשְּׂמֹאל אַמַּאי? הָא אֵין דֶּרֶךְ כְּתִיבָה בְּכָךְ! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאִטֵּר יָד שָׁנוּ. וְתֶהֱוֵי שְׂמֹאל דִּידֵיהּ כְּיָמִין דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְאַשְּׂמֹאל לִיחַיַּיב, אַיָּמִין לָא לִיחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara questions the beginning of the mishna: **Granted, for** writing with **the right** hand **let one be liable, as that is the** typical **manner of writing. However, for** writing with **the left** hand, **why** is one liable? **That is not the** typical **manner of writing. Rabbi Yirmeya said:** When the mishna taught that one who writes with his left hand is liable, **they taught** it **with regard to** one who is **left-handed.** The Gemara asks: **And** if so, **let his left** hand have the same legal status **as everyone’s right** hand; for writing **with** his **left** hand, **let him be liable,** for writing **with** his **right** hand, **let him not be liable. Rather, Abaye said:** This mishna refers to an **ambidextrous** person, who is liable for writing with either hand.


###### Shabbat 103a:10
[Shabbat 103a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:10)

רַב יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דַּאֲמַר לֹא חִיְּיבוּ שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם רוֹשֵׁם. וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי! כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion is **this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said: One is deemed liable** for writing **two letters only due to marking.** As such, one is liable for writing a letter even if he writes it imprecisely with his left hand. The Gemara asks: **From the fact that the latter clause** of the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, the first clause** of the mishna **is not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** The Gemara answers: That is not necessarily the case. **The entire** mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** and the attribution of his second statement was for emphasis alone.


###### Shabbat 103a:11
[Shabbat 103a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מָצִינוּ. אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת הוּא דִּמְחַיֵּיב, שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד — לָא מְחַיֵּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda said: We found** that one is liable for writing even if he did not complete what he was writing, so that he wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name. The Gemara asks: **Rather,** is that to say that according to **Rabbi Yehuda,** it is one who writes **two letters that are two different types** of letters **who is liable;** however, one who writes **two letters that are one type** of letter **is not liable?**


###### Shabbat 103a:12
[Shabbat 103a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשָׂה״ — אַחַת. יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב כׇּל הַשֵּׁם, וְעַד שֶׁיֶּאֱרוֹג כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד, וְעַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל הַנָּפָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵאַחַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that it is written: “When a leader sinned, **and he** unwittingly **performed one** of any of the commandments which the Lord his God commanded not to do, and is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22)? The Sages taught: I **might** have thought that one is not guilty until he performs a complete labor, e.g., **until he writes the entire name** that he intended to write, **or until he weaves the entire garment, or until he crafts the entire sieve** made from the reeds of the warp and the woof; therefore, **the verse states:** “A soul who sins unintentionally in any of the Lord’s commandments which one shall not perform, and did an action **from one** of these” (Leviticus 4:2).


###### Shabbat 103a:13
[Shabbat 103a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103a:13)

אִי ״מֵאַחַת״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא אוֹת אַחַת, וְלֹא אָרַג אֶלָּא חוּט אֶחָד, וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶלָּא בַּיִת אֶחָד בַּנָּפָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The emphasis on the phrase “from one” teaches that in order for one to be liable, it is sufficient that he perform only part of the prohibited labor. However, **if** that is derived from the use of the phrase **“from one,”** I **might** have thought that one is liable **even if he wrote only a single letter, or** even if **he wove only a single thread, or** even if **he crafted only a single eye of the sieve,** i.e., arranging the reeds to create a warp, and then interweaving a single reed as a woof;