הקודח כל שהוא חייב בשלמא לרב מיחזי כמאן דחר חורתא לבניינא אלא לשמואל לאו גמר מלאכה הוא הכא במאי עסקינן דבזעיה ברמצא דפרזלא ושבקיה בגוויה דהיינו גמר מלאכה:
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.
זה הכלל: זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי דחק קפיזא בקבא:
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.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המכה בקורנס על הסדן כו׳: מאי קעביד רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו מפני שמאמן את ידו קשו בה בני רחבה אלא מעתה חזא אומנתא בשבתא וגמר הכי נמי דמיחייב אלא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן תניא נמי הכי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף המכה בקורנס על הסדן בשעת מלאכה חייב שכן מרדדי טסי משכן עושין כן:
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.
מתני׳ החורש כל שהוא המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד כל שהוא חייב המלקט עצים אם לתקן כל שהן אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה המלקט עשבים אם לתקן כל שהוא אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי:
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.
גמ׳ למאי חזי חזי לביזרא דקרא דכוותה גבי משכן שכן ראוי לקלח אחד של סמנין:
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.
המנכש והמקרסם והמזרד: תנו רבנן התולש עולשין והמזרד זרדים אם לאכילה כגרוגרת אם לבהמה כמלא פי הגדי אם להיסק כדי לבשל ביצה קלה אם לייפות את הקרקע כל שהן
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.
אטו כולהו לא ליפות את הקרקע נינהו רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו באגם שנו אביי אמר אפילו תימא בשדה דלאו אגם וכגון דלא קמיכוין והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות לא צריכא דקעביד בארעא דחבריה:
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.
מתני׳ הכותב שתי אותיות בין בימינו בין בשמאלו בין משם אחד בין משתי שמות בין משתי סמניות בכל לשון חייב אמר רבי יוסי לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם שכך כותבין על קרשי המשכן לידע איזו בן זוגו אמר רבי יהודה מצינו שם קטן משם גדול שם משמעון ומשמואל נח מנחור דן מדניאל גד מגדיאל:
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.
גמ׳ בשלמא אימין ליחייב משום דדרך כתיבה בכך אלא אשמאל אמאי הא אין דרך כתיבה בכך אמר רבי ירמיה באטר יד שנו ותהוי שמאל דידיה כימין דכולי עלמא ואשמאל ליחייב אימין לא ליחייב אלא אמר אביי בשולט בשתי ידיו
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.
רב יעקב בריה דבת יעקב אמר הא מני רבי יוסי היא דאמר לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם והא מדסיפא רבי יוסי היא רישא לאו רבי יוסי כולה רבי יוסי היא:
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.
אמר רבי יהודה מצינו: אלא רבי יהודה שתי אותיות והן שני שמות הוא דמחייב שתי אותיות והן שם אחד לא מחייב
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?
והתניא ועשה אחת יכול עד שיכתוב כל השם ועד שיארוג כל הבגד ועד שיעשה כל הנפה תלמוד לומר מאחת
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).
אי מאחת יכול אפילו לא כתב אלא אות אחת ולא ארג אלא חוט אחד ולא עשה אלא בית אחד בנפה
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;