therefore, the verse states “one,” which means one complete labor. How can the two phrases be reconciled? Rather it must be explained that one is liable only if he writes a small name that constitutes part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from the name Shimon or from Shmuel, Noaḥ from Naḥor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gaddiel. Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he wrote only two letters that are one type of letter, e.g., shesh [shin shin], tet [tav tav], rar [reish reish], gag [gimmel gimmel], ḥaḥ [ḥet ḥet].

Rabbi Yosei said: And is one liable due to the labor of writing? Isn’t one liable only due to the prohibition of marking, as they would write symbols on adjacent beams of the Tabernacle to know which beam was another beam’s counterpart? Therefore, one who made a single scratch on two boards, or two scratches on a single board, is liable.

Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states, “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), and from the word one, 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 “from one.” 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. Therefore, the verse states “one.” But how can we reconcile the two phrases? One is only liable for performing a labor that is of the type that endures. In that case it is considered a complete labor.

Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these” (Leviticus 4:2). This unusual expression indicates repetition: And he performed one, and he performed these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.

The Gemara returns to the matter of the baraita: In any event, it was taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable even if he only wrote two letters that are one type of letter; he does not insist that one is liable only if he writes two different letters. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This opinion is his own, and that other opinion is that of his teacher, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Even if one only wrote two identical letters, forming words such as shesh, tet, rar, gag, or ḥaḥ, he is liable. That is Rabban Gamliel’s opinion, but Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that one is only liable for writing two different letters.

The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the baraita is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. And if you say that there is a practical difference between their opinions in the case of the letters alef alef in a word such as a’azerkha (Isaiah 45:5), in that the first tanna holds that if one wrote the letters alef alef of the word a’azerkha he is not liable because the two letters do not spell a complete word, and Rabbi Shimon holds that since that combination of letters appears in standard amulets [gelatorei] he is liable because this writing is considered to be enduring; is that to say that the opinion of Rabbi Shimon tends to stringency in this matter?

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who drills a hole of any size on Shabbat is liable, one who scrapes and smooths posts or parchments in any amount is liable, one who tans any amount of an animal hide is liable, one who draws any size form on a vessel is liable? Rabbi Shimon says: One is liable only if he drills the entire hole that he intended to drill, or if he scrapes the entire post or parchment that he intended to scrape, or if he tans the entire hide that he intended to tan, or if he draws the entire form that he intended to draw. Clearly, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is the lenient one.

Rather, Rabbi Shimon comes to teach us this: It is considered writing that endures only if he writes the entire name. The Gemara asks: And how can you say this? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: From the phrase “and he performed one” I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire name; therefore, the verse states “from one.” Apparently, he does not require that the entire word be written in order to be liable. The Gemara answers: Resolve the contradiction between these statements and say this: I might have thought that one is liable only if he writes the entire verse that he intended to write; therefore, the verse states “from one.” One is liable for writing less than that. However, one is certainly not liable for writing less than a complete word.

The baraita cites that Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And did an action from one of these.” This unusual expression indicates repetition and it is as if it says: And he did one, and he did these. From here it is derived that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for them all, and at times one is liable to bring several offerings, one for each and every one.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion? Since the verse says “from one” and “of these,” Rabbi Yosei detects both a restriction, i.e., “from” and “of,” an amplification based on superfluous expressions, as it would have been sufficient for the verse to say “one” and not “from one,” and it would have been sufficient to say “these” instead of “of these.” The repetitive language teaches that there are cases of one that is these and cases of these that are one.

Similarly, Rabbi Yosei explained that had the verse said “one,” the conclusion would have been that one is only liable for performing a complete transgression, e.g., writing the name Shimon on Shabbat. “From one” teaches that one is liable even if he does not complete the intended action, e.g., writing Shem from Shimon. “These” refers to the transgressions themselves, e.g., the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat. The words “from these” teach that even subcategories are included. The Gemara illustrates the case of one that is these. One was aware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but not aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, if he performed several prohibited labors during this lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each violation. These that are one refers to a case where one was unaware that he was in violation of the prohibition of Shabbat but he was aware that the individual labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all of the prohibited labors.

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 and wrote a small name that constituted part of a longer name, e.g., Shem from Shimon. The Gemara asks: Is it similar? The mem in Shem is closed and the mem in Shimon is open. Rav Ḥisda said: That is to say that a closed letter that one rendered open is valid even in writing a Torah scroll, and it is not considered an irregularity in the writing. Therefore, one is liable for writing an open letter instead of a closed one.

The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that interprets the verse: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]” means that it should be perfect writing [ketiva tamma] with no mistakes, and clear writing. This means that one should not write an alef as an ayin, an ayin as an alef, a beit as a kaf, a kaf as a beit, a gimmel as a tzadi, a tzadi as a gimmel, a dalet as a reish, a reish as a dalet, a heh as a ḥet, a ḥet as a heh, a vav as a yod, a yod as a vav, a zayin as a nun, a nun as a zayin, a tet as a peh, a peh as a tet.

Similarly, one should not write bent letters like kaf and nun found in the middle of a word as straight letters like kaf and nun found at the end of a word, nor should one write straight letters as bent letters. A final mem should not be written like a samekh, and a samekh should not be written like a mem. A closed mem should not be written open, and an open one should not be written closed. Similarly, if there is an open paragraph in the Torah one may not render it closed, and one may not render a closed paragraph open. If one wrote a mezuza or a Torah scroll following the Torah’s format for poetry or if one wrote poetry like regular text, as a mezuza is typically written, or if one wrote without ink but with another material, or if one wrote the mentions of God’s names in gold, all of these must be suppressed. Apparently, one may not write closed letters as open letters, contrary to the statement of Rav Ḥisda.

The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: While on the rest of the days of Sukkot the verse employs the phrase: “And its libation [veniska],” on the second day it is stated: “And their libations [veniskeihem]” (Numbers 29:19) with an extra letter mem; on the sixth day, it is stated: “And its libations [unsakhe’ah]” (Numbers 29:31) with an extra letter yod. On the seventh day, instead of “according to the law [kamishpat]” employed on the other days, it is stated: “According to their laws [kemishpatam]” (Numbers 29:33) with an extra letter mem. Together these additional letters, mem, yod, and mem, form the word mayim, which means water. This is an allusion to the water libation from the Torah. On Sukkot, a water libation was poured onto the altar in addition to the wine libation that accompanied sacrifices throughout the year. However, here, the closed mem at the end of the word veniskeihem is interpreted as if it were an open mem and used as the first mem in mayim.

And from the fact that an open letter that one rendered closed is valid, in the case of a closed letter, too, a closed letter that one rendered open is valid. This homiletic interpretation supports Rav Ḥisda’s opinion.

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is it similar? If one rendered an open letter closed,