Question (Rav Noson bar Oshaya): If one smoothes rocks, for which Av is he liable?

R. Yochanan gestured to show Makeh b'Patish.

Question: But the Mishnah is Mechayev smoothing rocks and Makeh b'Patish!

Answer: It means 'Smoothing rocks, which is liable for Makeh b'Patish.'

Question (Mishnah): If one drills any amount he is liable.

We understand this according to Rav - it looks like he drills for the sake of building. (Gilyonei ha'Shas - 'looks' is imprecise, it is actual building. PF - perhaps because it looks like it is for building, he is liable even without this intent, for it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah - but something that does not look like it is done with intent for a Melachah is not Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. A Mishnah (cited on 107A) is Mechayev for puncturing an abcess to make an opening (that will be permanent, or to also let in air) - nevertheless, Shmuel, who is Mechayev Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (42A), permits puncturing just to let out pus.)

But according to Shmuel, this is not the end of the Melachah!

Answer: The case is, he drilled with an iron nail and left it inside [to hang things on] - this is a final Melachah.

(Mishnah): The general rule is...

Question: What does this come to include?

Answer: It includes one who hollowed out a receptacle to hold three Lugim in a block big enough to a make a receptacle for four Lugim (even though he will enlarge the hole later, he is liable because some people leave it like this).

(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even one who bangs a hammer on an anvil...

Question: Why is he liable?

Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef): He trains his hand [to hit with the proper force].

Objection (Benei Rachbah): If someone saw a craftsman on Shabbos and learned [from him], is he liable?!

Answer #2 (Abaye and Rava): People that beat [gold thinly] to make the plating for the Kerashim did so (after every few hits on the gold they would hit the anvil to smooth the hammer, lest it tear the gold).

Support (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even one who bangs a hammer on an anvil while making the Kli is liable, for people that beat the plating for the Mishkan did so.

(Mishnah): The Shi'ur to be liable for plowing, weeding, pruning [dry branches] or pruning wet branches is any amount;

If one gathered [detached] wood:

If this was to improve [the tree or ground], he is liable for any amount;

If it was for fuel, the Shi'ur is to cook a light egg.

If one gathered [detached] grass:

If this was to improve [the ground], he is liable for any amount;

If it was for animals to eat, the Shi'ur is enough to fill a kid's mouth.

(Gemara) Question: What use is a tiny plowed area?

Answer: One can plant a gourd seed.

(Mishnah): Weeding, pruning dry or wet branches.

(Beraisa): If one detached endives or pruned [moist, edible] reeds:

If it was for people to eat, the Shi'ur is k'Grogeres; if it was for animals to eat, the Shi'ur is enough to fill a kid's mouth;

If it was for fuel, the Shi'ur is to cook a light egg;

If it was to improve [the ground], he is liable for any amount.

Question: In every case, he improves the ground!

Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef): The Reisha discusses a swamp (there is no benefit from the improvement).

Answer #2 (Abaye): It discusses even a field - the case is, he does not intend to improve it (therefore, he is not liable for improving).

Question: But Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reisha (an inevitable consequence, it is as if he intended)!

Answer: It discusses another's field (the one who pruned does not benefit. Tosfos - perhaps this is permitted only regarding a small improvement.)

(Mishnah): If one writes two letters of any language he is liable, whether he used his right or left hand, whether he wrote the same letter twice or two different letters, even if he wrote two symbols (Rashba - e.g. an inverted 'Nun'; Rashi - even if he used two different inks).

R. Yosi says, one is liable for two letters due to marking. So they would write [marks] on the Kerashim to know how to pair them up.

R. Yehudah says, we find [liability for] writing a small name when he intended to write a big name, e.g. he needed to write 'Shimon' or 'Shmuel' and he wrote 'Shem', or he wrote 'No'ach' in place of 'Nachor', or 'Dan' in place of 'Daniel', or 'Gad' in place of 'Gadiel'.

(Gemara) Question: We understand why he is liable for writing with the right hand, it is the normal way to write;

Why is he liable for writing with the left hand - this is abnormal!

Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah): The Mishnah discusses a left-handed person.

Objection: His left hand is like a regular person's right hand - he should be liable for [writing with] his left hand, and exempt for his right!

Answer #2 (Abaye): The Mishnah discusses an ambidextrous person.

Answer #3 (Rav Yakov brah d'Vas Yakov): Our Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who is Mechayev for two letters on account of marking (the left hand is fine for this).

Question: Since the Seifa is R. Yosi, the Reisha is not R. Yosi!

Answer: No, the Reisha and Seifa are both R. Yosi.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): We find...

Question: [Why did R. Yehudah give only examples of different letters -] he holds that one is liable for the same letter twice!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: 'V'Asah Achas' - perhaps one is not liable until he writes the entire word, weaves the entire garment or makes the entire sieve [for which he intended]!

Rejection: "V'Asah me'Achas" (he is liable even for part).

Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable even for writing one letter, weaving one thread or making one Bayis (wrap around the lengthwise reeds) in a sieve!

Rejection: "Achas" (a full Melachah) - he is liable for part of a big word only if it is a small word, e.g. Shem in place of Shimon ...

R. Yehudah says, even if he wrote two identical letters and they are a word he is liable, e.g. Shesh, Tes, Rar, Gag, Chach.

R. Yosi says, he is not liable for writing, rather, for marking, for they would write letters on the Kerashim to know how to pair them up!

Therefore, if he made one scratch on two planks, or two scratches on one plank he is liable.

Suggestion (R. Shimon): 'V'Asah Achas' - perhaps one is liable only for the entire word, garment, or sieve!

Rejection: "V'Asah me'Achas".

Suggestion: Perhaps he is liable even for one letter, thread or Bayis!

Rejection: "Achas" - he is liable only for a permanent Melachah.

R. Yosi says, [we expound as if said] 'V'Asah Achas v'Asah Henah' - sometimes one is liable Achas (one Chatas) for many transgressions, sometimes he is liable Henah, a Chatas for each transgression.

Summation of question: R. Yehudah is Mechayev even for two identical letters!

Answer: R. Yehudah himself is Mechayev only for different letters, in the Beraisa he teaches the opinion of his Rebbi:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Gamliel): Even if he wrote two identical letters and they are a word he is liable, e.g. Shesh, Tes, Rar, Gag, Chach.

Question: R. Shimon does not argue with the first Tana!

Suggestion: Perhaps they argue about writing 'Aleph-Aleph' (which is not a word) from "A'azercha" - the first Tana exempts, and R. Shimon obligates, for it is used in Kemi'os!

Rejection: That assumes that R. Shimon is more stringent [to Mechayev for less than the intended Melachah] - this is not so!

(Beraisa): One is liable for any amount of drilling, scraping, tanning, or making any design on a Kli;

R. Shimon says, he is not liable unless he drills, scrapes, tans, or draws as much as he intended.

Answer: Rather, R. Shimon teaches that he is not liable unless he writes the full word [intended].

Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon) Suggestion: 'V'Asah Achas' - perhaps one is liable only for the entire word, garment, or sieve!

Rejection: "V'Asah me'Achas".

Answer: Really, the suggestion was to exempt until he writes the entire verse - "V'Asah me'Achas" teaches he is liable even for one word.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): 'V'Asah Achas v'Asah Henah' - sometimes one is liable Achas (once) for many transgressions, sometimes he is liable Henah, a Chatas for each transgression.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): He also expounds the 'Mem' in "me'Achas" and the 'Mem' in "me'Henah":

Achas is sometimes Henah (many Chata'os for one transgression), Henah is sometimes Achas (one Chatas for many transgressions);

Achas alludes to [a full Melachah, e.g. writing] 'Shimon'; me'Achas alludes to writing Shem when he intended to write Shimon;

Henah alludes to Avos Melachah, me'Henah alludes to [what come from Avos, i.e.] Toldos.

Achas is sometimes Henah - Zadon Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos; Henah is sometimes Achas - Zadon Melachos and Shigegas Shabbos.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): We find [liability for] a small name from a big name...

Question: If he intended to write 'Shimon', he made an open (regular) 'Mem' - 'Shem' should have a closed (final) 'Mem'!

Answer (Rav Chisda): This teaches that if an open Mem was written in place of a closed Mem, it is valid.

Question (Beraisa): "U'Chsavtam" - the writing [of a Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah] must be Tam (flawless); if any of the following were interchanged, it requires Genizah (Rashba - until it is fixed; Rivash (7) - l'Chatchilah, one may not fix a Sefer Torah with four errors on every Daf (Menachos 29b). We list pairs prone to be confused because they look (Rashi - or sound) similar):

Aleph and Ayin, Beis and Kaf, Gimel and Tzadi, Dalet and Reish, Hei and Ches, Vov and Yud, Zayin and (final) Nun, Tes and Pe, bent (regular) letters (Chaf, Nun, Pe or Tzadi) and the straight (final) forms of these, (final) Mem and Samech, closed Mem and open Mem;

If an open Parashah was written closed, or vice-versa; (An open Parashah is denoted by a Pe in printed Chumashim - in Seforim, the next Parashah begins on the next line; a closed Parashah is denoted by a Samech, spaces are left before the next Parashah.)

If [regular text] was written like Shirah (parts of the lines were left blank), or if [text that should be written] Shirah was written normally;

If it was not written in ink, or if names of Hash-m were written in gold (all of these are Posel).

Answer: Rav Chisda holds like the following Tana:

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): (In Musaf of most days of Sukos, it says "V'Niskah" and "Ka'Mishpat".) On the second day it says "V'Niskeihem" (with an extra Mem), on day six it says "U'Nsacheha" (with an extra Yud), on day seven it says "K'Mishpatam";

The extra letters Mem, Yud, Mem spell Mayim, a hint to the Mitzvah to pour water on the Mizbe'ach on Sukos.

He uses a final Mem (of "V'Niskeihem") in place of a regular Mem (in Mayim) - surely, he likewise holds that a regular Mem in place of a closed Mem is valid.