1)

(a)We ask on Shmuel (and Rebbi Yochanan) from the statement in our Mishnah 'ha'Kode'ach Kol she'Hu Chayav' - why he is Chayav, since the hole still needs to be filled in, and it is not the final process.

(b)This is no problem according to Rav, who holds that boring a hole is Chayav because of Boneh - in which case he will be Chayav, whether it is the final process or not.

(c)And we answer that the Mishnah is speaking, according to Shmuel - when he banged a nail in the wall, and left it there, in which case, he has in fact, completed the process, and is Chayav for Makeh be'Patish.

(d)Our Mishnah writes 'Zeh ha'Klal 'Kol she'Hu Melachah, u'Melachto Miskayemes be'Shabbos, Chayav', which comes to include - someone who carves a cavity which can hold three Lugin in a big block of wood that is large enough to contain a Kav (four Lugin). The Chidush is that, in spite of the fact that he intends to enlarge the cavity from three to four Lugin, he is nevertheless Chayav, since some people will use it as it is, with the smaller cavity.

2)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan', which means - to strike with the hammer on the anvil. The B'nei Rachbah queried Rabah and Rav Yosef, who suggested that the Chiyuv is for training one's hand to strike the right spot with the correct force, in that - if that is so, then one ought also to be Chayav for just watching an expert craftsman working on Shabbos.

(b)Abaye and Rava therefore explain - that 'Makeh be'Kurnas al ha'Sadan' was performed by the craftsmen whose job it was to beat the gold and copper into flat sheeting. After every three strokes, they would strike once on the anvil, in order to ensure that the base of the hammer remained smooth (because a rough-bottomed hammer would have been likely to split the plates).

(c)And we support Abaye and Rava's explanation with a Beraisa - where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says exactly the same thing.

3)

(a)The Mishnah discusses the Shi'ur for Menachesh, Mekarsem and Mezared on Shabbos. 'Choresh' means plowing. The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Menachesh' is - weeding.

2. ... 'Mekarsem' is - pruning the dry branches?

3. ... 'Mezared' is - pruning the excessive branches.

(b)The Shi'ur the Tana gives for them is - a Kol-she'Hu.

(c)A Kol she'Hu of plowed land is useful - for sowing in it a pumpkin-seed.

4)

(a)The Shi'ur for collecting wood on Shabbos, if one does so ...

1. ... in order to clear the ground for plowing or in the process of pruning a tree, is - a Kol-she'Hu.

2. ... in order to obtain firewood for boiling an egg is - the amount required to boil a ki'Gerogeres of an egg.

(b)And the Shi'ur for collecting grasses if one does so in order to ...

1. ... clear the ground is again - a Kol-Shehu

2. ... feed one's animals is enough to fill the mouth of a kid-goat.

(c)Nevertheless, when it comes to carrying out seeds, the Shi'ur is two seeds (and not a Kol-Shehu) - because even though a person will take the trouble to sow one pumpkin-seed, he will not take the trouble to carry out less than two to sow.

5)

(a)The four possible Shi'urim for detaching Ulshin or soft canes from the ground are - 1. a k'Gerogeres (if it is for human consumption); 2. a kid-goat's mouthful (if it is for the consumption of one's animals); 3. sufficient to cook a ki'Gerogeres of a chicken's egg (if it is for fuel to cook something for a person); 4. a Kol Shehu (if it is to improve the field).

(b)Rabah and Rav Yosef explain that one is not always Chayav for improving the looks of the field if they are growing in a meadow, which does not require beautification. Abaye and Rava establish it even in the case of a regular field - in a case where one did not have in mind to improve the looks of the field.

(c)And to counter the Kashya from 'Pesik Reisha' (which is Chayav even according to Rebbi Shimon) - they establish it further by where the person doing the picking is working in somebody else's field (where he does not really care whether the field looks nice or not [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone two letters is Chayav, even if he writes ...

1. ... them with his left hand ...

2. ... the same letter twice ...

3. ... them with two different color dyes ...

4. ... in a language or script other that Lashon ha'Kodesh.

(b)When Rebbi Yossi adds 'Lo Chiyvu Sh'tei Osiyos Ela Mishum Roshem', he means - that he is Chayav even if he did not write any letters at all, but just made two marks as a sign ...

(c)... because in the Mishkan, they used to mark the planks, to ensure that they should always be placed in the same position, whenever the Levi'im re-erected the Mishkan after traveling in the desert.

(d)And when Rebbi Yehudah adds 'Matzinu Shem Gadol mi'Shem Katan', he means - that if someone intends to write 'Shimon', he is Chayav as soon as he writes 'Shin' 'Mem' (even though he intends to write Shimon or Shmuel) since they form an independent word ...

(e)... and the same will apply to someone who writes 'Nun' Ches', 'Daled' 'Nun' or 'Gimel' 'Daled', when really he intended to write Nachor, Daniel or Gadiel (for precisely the same reason).

7)

(a)We query our Mishnah, which declares someone who writes with his left hand, Chayav, even though this is obviously a case of 'ke'le'Achar Yad'. We refute Rebbi Yirmiyah, who establishes by someone who is left-handed - on the grounds that why the Tana then declares him Chayav if he writes with his right hand?

(b)Abaye therefore establishes it - with regard to a person who is ambidextrous. A right-handed person is Patur - since writing with the left hand is considered for him 'ke'Le'achar Yad'.

(c)Rav Ya'akov b'rah de'bas Shmuel establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi who holds - that the Chiyuv of writing is based on marking (as that was of the purpose of the letters written on the planks of the Mishkan, to know exactly where it was to be location. Consequently, even a left-handed person will be Chayav - because even if writing with one's left-hand is not considered writing, it is not worse than 'Roshem', which is the basis of Kosev, according to Rebbi Yossi.

(d)Even though the fact that the Seifa goes like Rebbi Yossi indicates that the Reisha does not the fact is that, according to Rav Ya'akov b'rah de'bas Shmuel - the entire Mishnah goes like him.

8)

(a)We now cite a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah appears to clash with what he himself just said. The Tana Kama learns from the extra "Mem" in "ve'Asah me'Achas" - that one is Chayav even if he did not weave the entire garment or write the entire word he initially set out to achieve.

(b)Having written "me'Achas", we now learn from "Achas" - that, on the other hand, he must write at least two letters and weave two rows of a garment or of a wickerwork basket (something which will last), in order to be Chayav.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah comments on this - that the two letters that he writes can even be the same ones, as they form a word, such as 'Sas', 'Teis', 'Rar', 'Gag' and 'Chach' (each of which is a word).

(d)If, in the last three cases, he simply meant to write a grammatical derivative of the word, such as 'Rarah', 'Gagi' or 'Chachim', what might he have been intending to write in the first two cases (where he wrote 'Sas' and 'Teis')?

(e)We have yet to cite Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon. But did Rebbi Yehudah not say in our Mishnah - that one requires two different letters in order to be Chayav (like the Tana Kama of the current Beraisa)?

9)

(a)In our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah requires two different letters, he is stating his own opinion - whereas in the Beraisa, where he is Mechayev even for writing the same letter twice, he is stating that of his Rebbe, Rabban Gamliel (as we learned in a Beraisa).

(b)The two ramifications of the two markings for which Rebbi Yossi holds that one is Chayav are - a. two markings on one plank; b. one marking that marks two planks.

10)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Shimon, who Darshens from "me'Achas" that it is not necessary to write the entire word that he originally had in mind to write, and from "Achas" that he is not Chayav for writing one letter or for weaving row is - that he seems to be repeating the D'rashah of the Tana Kama.

(b)We initially suggest that Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan are arguing over the 'Alef, Alef' in "A'azreka" (in Yeshayah) - see Tosfos DH 'Alef, Alef'') - for which the Tana Kama exempts, but Rebbi Shimon renders Chayav.

(c)But we retract from this explanation, because of the Beraisa 'ha'Kode'ach Kol she'Hu, ha'Megarer Kol she'Hu, ha'Me'abed Kol she'Hu, ha'Megarer bi'Cheli Tzurah Kol she'Hu ... Chayav'. Rebbi Shimon says 'Patur' ...

(d)... a clear proof that when it comes to the Shi'urim of Meleches Shabbos, Rebbi Shimon is the one who is lenient (and not strict, as we just suggested).

11)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi, the Torah ought to have written either "Achas" or "Heinah". How many D'rashos does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina therefore learns - six D'rashos from the Pasuk, according to him.

(b)He learns from ...

1. ... the 'Mem' of "me'Achas" - that someone who intends to write 'Shimon' is Chayav as soon as he writes the first two letters (which spell 'Shem').

2. ... the 'Mem' of "me'Heinah" (assuming that "Heinah" refers to the Avos) - that one is Chayav for transgressing the Toldos as well as the Avos.

3. ... 'Achas she'Hi Heinah' - Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos.

4. ... 'Heinah she'Hi Achas' - Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos.

12)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah of 'Shem mi'Shimon' is - that in fact, the writer wrote a 'Mem Pesuchah' (an open 'Mem') instead of a 'Mem Setumah' (a final one).

(b)Rav Chisda resolves it - by extrapolating from here that Rebbi Yossi (and Rebbi Shimon) validate a Setumah that one writes instead of a Pesuchah.

(c)We query this from a Beraisa however, which learns from the Pasuk in the Shema "u'Chesavtam" - that the writing must be accurate.

13)

(a)Consequently, says the Tana, if someone confuses (the script of) 'Aynin and 'Alfin', 'Beisin' and 'Kafin', 'Gamin' and 'Tzadin', 'Dalsin' and 'Reishin', 'Hehin' and 'Chesin', 'Vavin' and 'Yudin', 'Zainin' and 'Nunin', 'Tesin' and 'Peifin', 'Memin' and 'Samchin' - his work is Pasul and must go into Genizah.

(b)He also invalidates 'Setumin' - with reference to open 'Memin', and 'Pesuchin' - which means closed 'Memin'.

(c)Besides 'Kefufin' and 'Peshutin' and vice-versa, the Tana invalidate a Parshah Pesuchah that is written as a Setumah, or vice-versa.

(d)Finally, the Tana rules - that a Sefer-Torah that one writes as a Shirah (or vice-versa), without proper ink, or he writes the Names of Hash-m in gold - is invalid, too.

(e)Besides a Sefer-Torah - all the above refer to Tefilin and Mezuzos.

14)

(a)To reconcile Rebbi Yehudah with the current Beraisa, which invalidates Setumin that one writes as Pesuchin, we establish him like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who extrapolates from "ve'Niskeihem" (written on the second day of Succos), "u'Nesachehah" (written on the sixth) and "ke'Mishpatam" (written on the seventh) - the Din of Nisuch ha'Mayim (from the extra 'Mem', 'Yud' and 'Mem' contained in these three words.

(b)We prove from there - that a Mem Setumah that is written as a Pesuchah ('Shem mi'Shimon') is Kasher (just as Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira validates a Pesuchah that is written as a Setumah), reconciling Rebbi Shimon with the Beraisa from which we queried him.

15)

(a)We question this however, with a statement by Rav Chisda, who said - that the 'Mem' and the 'Samech' in the Luchos stood by way of a miracle.

(b)We now have a problem with our previous statement, based on a statement of Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Chiya bar Aba), who said - 'Menaptzech Tzofim Amrum' meaning (according to Rav Chisda) - that the Plain letters 'Mem', 'Nun', 'Tzadik', 'Pey' and 'Chaf' were instituted by the Tzofim.

(c)The 'Tzofim' were the Nevi'im, (with specific reference to Ezra).

16)

(a)We reject ...

1. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah's statement as it stands - due to the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Eileh ha'Mitzvos ... ", from which we extrapolate that not even a Navi is permitted to add to them.

2. ... the suggestion that what he meant was that even though both sets of letters were given at Har Sinai, they did not know which was which until the Tzofim came and taught them - inasmuch as the same Kashya remains, since there is a fifty-fifty chance that Ezra would have switched them round.

(b)We finally explain 'Menatzpech Tzofim Amrum' to mean - that they originally knew which 'Mem' was which, only they forgot, and all the Tzofim did was to reinstate the Memin as they originally were.

(c)Rav Chisda adds - that the middle of the final 'Mem' and the 'Samach' (which was carved out) remained standing in mid-air of the Luchos was a miracle.