Shabbat

therefore 'one' is stated. How is this [to be reconciled]? One is liable only if he writes a short noun [as part] of a long noun: SHeM as part of SHiMe'oN or SHeMU'eL, NoaH as part of NaHoR, DaN as part of DaNI'eL, GaD as part of GaDDI'eL.  R. Judah said: Even if one writes two letters of the same designation, he is liable: e.g., SHeSH, TeTH, RaR, GaG, HaH.  Said R. Jose: Is he then guilty on account of writing? Surely he is guilty only on account of [making] a mark, because marks were made on [each of] the boards of the Tabernacle to know which was its companion. Therefore if one draws one line across two boards, or two lines on one board, he is culpable. R. Simeon said: 'And shall do one': I might think that one must write the whole noun or weave a complete garment or make a whole sieve [before he is liable]; therefore it is written, 'of one'. If of one, I might think that even if one writes one letter only, or weaves one thread only, or makes one mesh only in a sieve, [he is guilty]: therefore 'one' is stated. How is this [to be reconciled]? One is liable only when he performs an action the like of which stands [on its own].  R. Jose said: 'And shall do one, and shall to them': sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, at others one is liable for each separately.  Now it is incidentally taught, R. Judah said: Even if one only writes two letters of the same designation, he is liable? — There is no difficulty: one is his own [view], the other is his teacher's. For it was taught: R. Judah said in R. Gamaliel's name: Even if one only writes two letters of the sanie designation, he is liable, e.g., SHeSH, TeTH, RaR, GaG, HaH. Now R. Simeon, is he not identical with the first Tanna? And should you answer, they differ in respect of the a'a of a'azzereka:  the first Tanna holding, [for writing] the a'a of a'azzereka one is not liable:  while R. Simeon holds, Since it is contained in charms in general,  he is culpable, — shall we then say that R. Simeon is more stringent? Surely it was taught: He who bores, however little,  he who scrapes,  however little, he who tans, however little, he who draws a figure on a vessel, however little, [is culpable]. R. Simeon said: [He is not culpable] unless he bores right through or scrapes the whole of it [the skin] or tans the whole of it or draws the whole of it!  Rather R. Simeon comes to teach us this: [one is not guilty] unless he writes the whole word. But can you say so? Surely it was taught, R. Simeon said: 'And shall do one': you might think that one must write the whole word; therefore 'of one' is stated? — Answer and say thus: You might think that one must write a complete sentence, therefore 'of one' is stated. R. Jose said: 'And shall do one, and shall do them': sometimes one sacrifice is incurred for all of them, at others one is liable for each separately. Said R. Jose son of R. Hanina, What is R. Jose's reason? 'One', 'of one', 'them', 'of them': [this implies] one may be the equivalent of many, and many may equal one. 'One', [i.e.,] SHiMe'oN; 'of one', [i.e.,] SHeM [as part] of SHiMe'oN; 'them' [i.e.,] the principal labours; 'of them:', the derivative labours. 'One is the equivalent of many' — awareness of the Sabbath coupled with unawareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours. 'Many may equal one' unawareness of the Sabbath coupled with awareness [of the forbidden nature of his] labours. R. JUDAH SAID: WE FIND A SHORT NAME [FORMING PART] OF A LONG NAME. Are they then similar: the mem of SHeM is closed, whereas that of SHiMe'oN is open?  — Said R. Hisda: This proves that if a closed [mem] is written open,  it is valid.  An objection is raised: U-kethabtam:  it must be kethibah tammah [perfect writing];  thus one must not write the alef as an 'ayyin, the 'ayyin as an alef, the beth as a kaf, or the kaf as a beth, the gimmel as a zadde or the zadde as a gimmel,  the daleth as a resh or the resh as a daleth, the heh as a heth or the heth as a heh, the waw as a yod or the yod as a waw, the zayyin as a nun or the nun as a zayyin, the teth as a pe or the pe as a teth, bent letters straight or straight letters bent,  the mem as a samek or the samek as a mem, closed [letters] open or open letters closed.  An open section [parashah] may not be written closed, nor a closed section open.  If one writes it as the 'Song', or if one writes the 'Song' as the general text,  or if one writes it without ink, or if one writes the 'Names'  in gold, they [the Scrolls thus written] must be 'hidden'.  — He [R. Hisda] holds with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Judah b. Bathyra said: In reference to the second [day] 'We-niskehem [and their drink-offerings]' is stated; in reference to the sixth, 'u-nesakehah [and the drink-offerings thereof]'; in reference to the seventh, 'ke-mishpatam [after the ordinance]':  this gives mem, yod, mem  [i.e.,] mayim [water], whence we have a Biblical intimation of the water libation.  Now since if an open letter is written closed, it is valid,  a closed [letter] is the same, [viz.,] if a closed letter is written open, it is fit. But how compare! If an open [letter] is written closed,