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. 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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל. ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ לְאֵתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוּיֵי דְּחַק קְפִיזָא בְּקַבָּא. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
גְּמָ׳ לְמַאי חֲזֵי? חֲזֵי לְבִיזְרָא דְקַרָא. דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּן, שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לְקֶלַח אֶחָד שֶׁל סַמָּנִין. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מָצִינוּ. אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת הוּא דִּמְחַיֵּיב, שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד — לָא מְחַיֵּיב? 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?
וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשָׂה״ — אַחַת. יָכוֹל עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב כׇּל הַשֵּׁם, וְעַד שֶׁיֶּאֱרוֹג כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד, וְעַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל הַנָּפָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵאַחַת״. 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).
אִי ״מֵאַחַת״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא אוֹת אַחַת, וְלֹא אָרַג אֶלָּא חוּט אֶחָד, וְלֹא עָשָׂה אֶלָּא בַּיִת אֶחָד בַּנָּפָה, 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;