## Shabbat Daf 103b

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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת״. הָא כֵּיצַד, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב שֵׁם קָטָן מִשֵּׁם גָּדוֹל — ״שֵׁם״ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן וּמִשְּׁמוּאֵל, ״נֹחַ״ מִנָּחוֹר, ״דָּן״ מִדָּנִיאֵל, ״גָּד״ מִגַּדִּיאֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב, כְּגוֹן: ״שֵׁשׁ״ ״תֵּת״, ״רָר״, ״גַּג״, ״חָח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
therefore, **the verse states “one,”** which means one complete labor. **How** can the two phrases be reconciled? Rather it must be explained that **one is liable only if he writes a small name** that constitutes part **of a longer name,** e.g., **Shem from** the name **Shimon** or **from Shmuel, Noaḥ from Naḥor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gaddiel. Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even** if **he wrote only two letters that are one type** of letter, **e.g., *shesh* [*shin shin*], *tet* [*tav tav*], *rar* [*reish reish*], *gag* [*gimmel gimmel*], *ḥaḥ* [*ḥet ḥet*].**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב הוּא חַיָּיב?! וַהֲלֹא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם רוֹשֵׁם, שֶׁכֵּן רוֹשְׁמִין עַל קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן לֵידַע אֵיזוֹ הִיא בֶּן זוּגוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, שָׂרַט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל שְׁנֵי נְסָרִין, אוֹ שְׁתֵּי שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל נֶסֶר אֶחָד — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to** the labor of **writing? Isn’t one liable only due to** the prohibition of **marking, as they** would **write** symbols **on** adjacent **beams of the Tabernacle to know which** beam was another beam’s **counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת״, יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אֶת כָּל הַשֵּׁם, עַד שֶׁיֶּאֱרוֹג כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת כָּל הַנָּפָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵאַחַת״. אִי ״מֵאַחַת״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא אוֹת אַחַת, וַאֲפִילּוּ לֹא אָרַג אֶלָּא חוּט אֶחָד, וַאֲפִילּוּ לֹא עָשָׂה אֶלָּא בַּיִת אֶחָד בַּנָּפָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת״. הָא כֵּיצַד? אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** The verse states, “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), and from the word one, 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 “from one.”** 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.** Therefore, **the verse states “one.” But how** can we reconcile the two phrases? **One is only liable for performing a labor that** is **of the type** that **endures.** In that case it is considered a complete labor.


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת״ ״וְעָשָׂה הֵנָּה״, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says** that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these” (Leviticus 4:2). This unusual expression indicates repetition: **And he performed one, and he performed these.** From here it is derived that **at times one is liable** to bring **one** sin-offering **for them all, and at times one is liable** to bring several offerings, one **for each and every one.**


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב, כְּגוֹן ״שֵׁשׁ״, ״תֵּת״, ״רָר״, ״גַּג״, ״חָח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the matter of the *baraita*: **In any event, it was taught** that **Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even** if **he only wrote two letters that are one type** of letter; he does not insist that one is liable only if he writes two different letters. The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** opinion is **his own,** and **that** other opinion is **that of his teacher, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Even if one only wrote two identical letters,** forming words **such as *shesh*, *tet*, *rar*, *gag*,** or ***ḥaḥ*, he is liable.** That is Rabban Gamliel’s opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא אָלֶ״ף אָלֶ״ף דַּ״אֲאַזֶּרְךָ״ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אָלֶ״ף אָלֶ״ף דַּ״אֲאַזֶּרְךָ״ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּגְלָטוֹרֵי בְּעָלְמָא — חַיָּיב, לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְחוּמְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** in the *baraita* **is** identical to the opinion of the **first *tanna*. And if you say** that **there is** a practical difference **between** their opinions in the case of the letters ***alef alef*** in a word such as ***a’azerkha*** (Isaiah 45:5), in that the **first *tanna* holds** that if one wrote the letters ***alef alef*** of the word ***a’azerkha* he is not liable** because the two letters do not spell a complete word, **and Rabbi Shimon holds** that **since** that combination of letters **appears in standard amulets [*gelatorei*] he is liable** because this writing is considered to be enduring; **is that to say** that the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** tends **to stringency** in this matter?


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַקּוֹדֵחַ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, הַמְגָרֵר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, הַמְעַבֵּד כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, הַצָּר בִּכְלִי צוּרָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּקְדַּח אֶת כּוּלּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּגְרוֹר אֶת כּוּלּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיְּעַבֵּד אֶת כּוּלּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיָּצוּר כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who drills** a hole of **any size** on Shabbat **is liable, one who scrapes** and smooths posts or parchments in **any amount** is liable, **one who tans any amount** of an animal hide is liable, **one who draws any size form on a vessel** is liable? **Rabbi Shimon says:** One is liable **only if he drills the entire** hole that he intended to drill, or if **he scrapes the entire** post or parchment that he intended to scrape, or if **he tans the entire hide** that he intended to tan, or if **he draws the entire form** that he intended to draw. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is the lenient one.


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

אֶלָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם כּוּלּוֹ. וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת״, יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם כּוּלּוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵאַחַת״! תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב אֶת הַפָּסוּק כּוּלּוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵאַחַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Shimon comes to teach us this:** It is considered writing that endures only **if he writes the entire name.** The Gemara asks: **And how can you say this? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** From the phrase **“and he performed one”** I **might** have thought that one is liable **only if he writes the entire name;** therefore, **the verse states “from one.”** Apparently, he does not require that the entire word be written in order to be liable. The Gemara answers: **Resolve** the contradiction between these statements **and say this:** I **might** have thought that one is liable only **if he writes the entire verse** that he intended to write; therefore, **the verse states “from one.”** One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת״ ״וְעָשָׂה הֵנָּה״ — פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* cites that **Rabbi Yosei says** that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these.” This unusual expression indicates repetition and it is as if it says: **And he did one, and he did these.** From here it is derived that **at times one is liable** to bring **one** sin-offering **for them all, and at times one is liable** to bring several offerings, one **for each and every one.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי ״אַחַת״ ״מֵאַחַת״, ״הֵנָּה״ ״מֵהֵנָּה״, אַחַת שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״, וְ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s** opinion? Since the verse says “from one” and “of these,” Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., “from” and “of,” an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say **“one”** and not **“from one,”** and it would have been sufficient to say **“these”** instead of **“of these.”** The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of **one that is these and** cases of **these that are one.**


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

״אַחַת״ — ״שִׁמְעוֹן״, ״מֵאַחַת״ — ״שֵׁם״ מִ״שִּׁמְעוֹן״. ״הֵנָּה״ — אָבוֹת, ״מֵהֵנָּה״ — תּוֹלָדוֹת. אַחַת שֶׁהִיא הֵנָּה — זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. הֵנָּה שֶׁהִיא אַחַת — שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said **“one,”** the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name **Shimon** on Shabbat. **“From one”** teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing **Shem from Shimon. “These”** refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., **the primary categories of labor** prohibited on Shabbat. The words **“from these”** teach that even **subcategories** are included. The Gemara illustrates the case of **one that is these.** One **was aware that** he was in violation of the prohibition of **Shabbat but not aware** that the individual **labors** were prohibited. In that case, if he performed several prohibited labors during this lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each violation. **These that are one** refers to a case where one **was unaware that** he was in violation of the prohibition of **Shabbat but he was aware** that the individual **labors** were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all of the prohibited labors.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מָצִינוּ שֵׁם קָטָן מִשֵּׁם גָּדוֹל. מִי דָּמֵי? מֵ״ם דְּ״שֵׁם״ סָתוּם, מֵ״ם דְּ״שִׁמְעוֹן״ פָּתוּחַ! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת סָתוּם וַעֲשָׂאוֹ פָּתוּחַ — כָּשֵׁר.

**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 and wrote **a small name** that constituted part **of a longer name,** e.g., Shem from Shimon. The Gemara asks: **Is it similar?** The ***mem*** in **Shem is closed and the *mem*** in **Shimon is open. Rav Ḥisda said: That is to say** that a **closed** letter that **one rendered open is valid** even in writing a Torah scroll, and it is not considered an irregularity in the writing. Therefore, one is liable for writing an open letter instead of a closed one.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ — שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, שֶׁלֹּא יִכְתּוֹב אַלְפִין עַיְינִין, עַיְינִין אַלְפִין. בֵּיתִין כָּפִין, כָּפִין בֵּיתִין. גַּמִּין צָדִין, צָדִין גַּמִּין. דַּלְתִין רֵישִׁין, רֵישִׁין דַּלְתִין. הֵיהִין חֵיתִין, חֵיתִין הֵיהִין. וָוִין יוֹדִין, יוֹדִין וָוִין. זַיְינִין נוּנִין, נוּנִין זַיְינִין. טֵיתִין פֵּיפִין, פֵּיפִין טֵיתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection** from a *baraita* that interprets the verse: **“And you shall write them** on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). “And you shall write them [*ukhtavtam*]” means **that it should be perfect writing [*ketiva tamma*]** with no mistakes, and clear writing. This means that **one should not write** an ***alef* as** an ***ayin*,** an ***ayin* as** an ***alef*,** a ***beit* as** a ***kaf*,** a ***kaf* as** a ***beit*,** a ***gimmel* as** a ***tzadi*,** a ***tzadi* as** a ***gimmel*,** a ***dalet* as** a ***reish*,** a ***reish* as** a ***dalet*,** a ***heh* as** a ***ḥet*,** a ***ḥet* as** a ***heh*,** a ***vav* as** a ***yod*,** a ***yod* as** a ***vav*,** a ***zayin* as** a ***nun*,** a ***nun* as** a ***zayin*,** a ***tet* as** a ***peh*,** a ***peh* as** a ***tet*.**


###### Shabbat 103b:14
[Shabbat 103b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103b:14)

כְּפוּפִין פְּשׁוּטִין, פְּשׁוּטִין כְּפוּפִין. מֵימִין סָמְכִין, סָמְכִין מֵימִין. סְתוּמִין פְּתוּחִין, פְּתוּחִין סְתוּמִין. פָּרָשָׁה פְּתוּחָה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה סְתוּמָה, סְתוּמָה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה פְּתוּחָה. כְּתָבָהּ כְּשִׁירָה, אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב אֶת הַשִּׁירָה כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב שֶׁלֹּא בִּדְיוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב אֶת הָאַזְכָּרוֹת בְּזָהָב — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִגָּנְזוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, one should not write **bent** letters like *kaf* and *nun* found in the middle of a word as **straight** letters like *kaf* and *nun* found at the end of a word, nor should one write **straight** letters as **bent** letters. A final ***mem*** should not be written like a ***samekh*,** and a ***samekh*** should not be written like a ***mem*.** A **closed** *mem* should not be written **open,** and an **open** one should not be written **closed.** Similarly, if there is **an open paragraph** in the Torah **one may not render it closed,** and **one may not render a closed** paragraph **open.** If **one wrote** a *mezuza* or a Torah scroll **following the** Torah’s format **for poetry or if one wrote poetry like** regular text, as a *mezuza* is typically written, **or if one wrote without ink** but with another material, **or if one wrote the mentions** of God’s names **in gold,** all of **these must be suppressed.** Apparently, one may not write closed letters as open letters, contrary to the statement of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Shabbat 103b:15
[Shabbat 103b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103b:15)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר בַּשֵּׁנִי ״וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״. בַּשִּׁשִּׁי ״וּנְסָכֶיהָ״, בַּשְּׁבִיעִי ״כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם״, הֲרֵי מֵ״ם יוֹ״ד מֵ״ם — ״מַיִם״, מִכָּאן רֶמֶז לְנִיסּוּךְ מַיִם מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:** While on the rest of the days of Sukkot the verse employs the phrase: “And its libation [*veniska*],” on the **second** day **it is stated: “And their libations [*veniskeihem*]”** (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter *mem*; **on the sixth day, it is stated: “And its libations [*unsakhe’ah*]”** (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter *yod*. **On the seventh** day, instead of “according to the law [*kamishpat*]” employed on the other days, **it is stated: “According to their laws [*kemishpatam*]”** (Numbers 29:33) with an extra letter *mem*. Together these additional letters, ***mem*, *yod*,** and ***mem*, form the word *mayim*,** which means water. **This is an allusion to the water libation from the Torah.** On *Sukkot*, a water libation was poured onto the altar in addition to the wine libation that accompanied sacrifices throughout the year. However, here, the closed *mem* at the end of the word *veniskeihem* is interpreted as if it were an open *mem* and used as the first *mem* in *mayim*.


###### Shabbat 103b:16
[Shabbat 103b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103b:16)

וּמִדְּפָתוּחַ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ סָתוּם — כָּשֵׁר, סָתוּם נָמֵי סָתוּם וַעֲשָׂאוֹ פָּתוּחַ — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** from the fact **that an open** letter **that one rendered closed is valid,** in the case of a **closed** letter, **too, a closed letter that one rendered open is valid.** This homiletic interpretation supports Rav Ḥisda’s opinion.


###### Shabbat 103b:17
[Shabbat 103b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/103b:17)

מִי דָּמֵי? פָּתוּחַ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ סָתוּם —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this comparison: **Is it similar?** If **one rendered an open** letter **closed,**