משנה: רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הָאוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה חוּטִין בַּתְּחִילָּה וְאֶחָד עַל הָאָרִיג חַייָב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין בַּתְּחִילָּה בֵּין בַּסּוֹף שִׁיעוּרוֹ שְׁנֵי חוּטִין׃ MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure1The minimum which makes liable. is two threads.
הלכה: רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הָאוֹרֵג כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי עולָּא. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. עַל יְדֵי שְׁלִישִׁי מְלַאכְתּוֹ מִתְקַייֶמֶת. מַה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּשׁ. וְהַשַּׂק וְהַקּוּפָּה מִצְטָֽרְפִין בְּכִלְאַיִם: אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שְׁלִישִׁי מְלַאכְתּוֹ מִתְקַייֶמֶת. בְּרַם הָכָא פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן מִיסְתַּתֵּר הוּא. אַשְׁכָּחַת אָמַר עַל דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. פְּעָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה בַתְּחִילָּה. פְּעָמִים שְׁנַיִם עַל גַּבֵּי אֶחָד אָרוּג מֵאֶתְמוֹל. פְּעָמִים שְׁנַיִם עַל גַּבֵּי אֶחָד אֲרוּגִים מֵאֶתְמוֹל. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. 11The first part of this paragraph has a parallel (with R. Simon quoted before R. Ulla) in Kilayim 9:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.9.6.4">Kilaim 9:7, Notes 168–170. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent12For R. Eliezer work is only forbidden on the Sabbath if it practically is irreversible.. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there13Kilayim 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.9.6.1">Mishnah Kilaim 9:10.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches14It is forbidden to put woolen and linen cloth together only if they are sewn together by at least three stitches (which do not have to be knotted at the ends).. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.15This last clause also is a statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah but is irrelevant for the discussion here.” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there16This statement is taken from Kilaim which is “here”; the statement of R. Eliezer in Šabbat is “there”. that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here17If two pieces of cloth are connected only by two open stitches, they will separate by themselves and cannot create kilaim. it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday18It is clear from the plural used for “woven” that the last clause must read “sometimes one additional to two woven yesterday”. This is Rashba’s reading. R. Eliezer simply declares liability of a person who adds the third row on a loom, irrespective of the creation of the first two rows. Shabbat.105a">Babli 105a..
רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּעָייָן. מָהוּ אֶחַד עַל הָאָרִיג. אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁנַיִם. אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבָּנִן דְּהָכָא אָֽמְרֵי. אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁנַיִם. הָֽיְתָה טַלִּית אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה. בַּתְּחִילָּה עַד שֶׁיֶּאֱרוֹג בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם חוּטִין וּבַסּוֹף אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוֹא. הָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַגַּב עַל גַּבֵּי אִימְרָא אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוֹא חַייָב. לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לְצִילְצוּל קָטָן שֶׁאָרַג בּוֹ שְׁנֵי חוּטִים עַל רוֹחַב שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתִּים חַייָב. וּבְנֶפֶשׁ מַסֶּכֶת כְּמָאן דְּהוֹא בַתְּחִילָּה. וְהָהֵן בַּדָּא אֲפִילוּ בְסוֹף כָּאָרִיג הוּא. וְהָהֵן לַסּוֹטָה אֲפִילוּ בְסוֹף כָּאָרִיג הוּא. The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what means “one on the weave”? One on top of two19In the quotes of this passages in Rashba and Ritba, in their commentaries on the Shabbat.105a">Babli 105a, this clause is missing. On the other hand, since the sentence is formulated as a question, the text as given here can be sustained, meaning that the rabbis of Caesarea questioned whether For Rebbi Eliezer weaving a single thread constitutes a Sabbath violation if it is additional to two or three existing threads. The answer is given by the Academy of Tiberias., one on top of three. The rabbis here20Tiberias. are saying, one on top of two. If there was one large toga, at the start until he weave two threads of it, and at the end the most minute amount21The “most minute amount” cannot be arbitrarily small even though it is noted in the Tosephta that it may be less than the hand-breadths stated in the Mishnah.. 22Tosephta 12:1 (ed. Liebermann), Shabbat.105a">Babli 105a.“One who weaves two threads on top of the back23In the Tosephta: הגס “the thick part”, the seam with which the cloth was started., on top of the seam24On the sides or the end., in the most minute amount21The “most minute amount” cannot be arbitrarily small even though it is noted in the Tosephta that it may be less than the hand-breadths stated in the Mishnah. is liable. To what may this be compared? To a small belt where he is liable if he wove two threads in the width of three spaces25A thread of the woof is counted fully if it covers three threads of the warp..” And with woolen26Arabic نفش “wool”. warp27Cf. Judges.16.13">Jud. 16:13. Woolen warp always requires full three threads of woof to induce liability. it is as at the start, and this cloth28Straight cloth needs only one additional thread to induce liability. even at the end it is weave, and this veil29Cf. Shabbat 4:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.4.2.6">Chapter 4, Note 45. even at the end it is weave.
הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּכוֹתֵב אֶת הַשֵּׁם עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת לְהַשְׁלִים אֶת הַשֵּׁם וְאוֹת אַחַת לְהַשְּׁלִים אֶת הַסֶּפֶר חַייָב. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בַּחוֹל וְאוֹת אַחַת בַּשַׁבָּת. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. לָמָּה. אוֹ מִשּׁוּם קִייוּם מְלָאכָה אוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהִצְטָרֵף עִמּוֹ. אִיתָא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ אָרַג חוּט אֶחָד בַּחוֹל וְחוּט אֶחָד בַּשַּׁבָּת שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהִצְטָרֵף עִמּוֹ. אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם קִייוּם מְלָאכָה. כַּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בְּטִיבֵּרִיָּא וְאוֹת אַחַת בְּצִיפֳּרִין חַייָב. דִּלֹא כֵן כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בַּשַׁבָּת זוֹ וְאוֹת אַחַת בַּשַׁבָּת הַבָּאָה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אִתָא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ כָתַב אוֹת אַחַת בַּחוֹל וְאוֹת אַחַת בַּשַׁבָּת. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת. בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת זוֹ בֵין בַּשַּׁבָּת הַבָּאָה לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. מִפְּנֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵן פטורִין. Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes30Since a Sabbath violation occurs only if the perpetrator’s intent was executed. If he intended to write a longer word and did not finish it, his intent was not satisfied. But if he starts writing a longer text, the moment he finishes the first word which he intended to write he becomes liable.. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable31Tosephta 11:7 (ed. Liebermann). For R. Eliezer he is liable since he finished a word, for R. Joshua and his followers because he finished, i. e., because of “hitting with a hammer”..” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why32The question is asked about R. Joshua.? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it33The reason may be either that for him only writing two letters creates a Sabbath violation and therefore adding one letter is not “hitting with a hammer” or it is that it can be seen that the new letter was written at another time than the first, but if the difference were not visible he would declare liability because of “hitting with a hammer”?. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it34Since cloth may be woven at different times without the interruption being visible, the reason must be that “hitting with a hammer” only applies to work done on the Sabbath itself.? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable35Shabbat 12:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.12.4.2">Chapter 12, Note 76.. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable36This baraita also is quoted in the Keritot.17a">Babli, Keritut 17a. Again R. Eliezer declares liable since an entire word was produced.. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages37For R. Eliezer really the baraita is not needed; it only is needed for the Sages following R. Joshua who might make a distinction whether or not both letters were written on the Sabbath. who declare not liable.