משנה: הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד חַייָב. כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ בְּסַם בְּסִיקְרָא בְּקוֹמוֹס וְקַלְקַנְתּוֹס וּבְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם עַל שְׁנֵי כוֹתְלֵי הַבַּיִת וְעַל שְׁנֵי דַפֵּי פִּינַקְס וְהֵן נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה חַייָב. הַכּוֹתֵב עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ חַייָב. וְהַמְסָרֵט עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁע פּוֹטֵר: MISHNAH: One who writes two letters in one oblivion is liable. He is liable if he wrote in ink, by chemicals10According to Rashi yellow arsenic, according to Maimonides any coloring derived from roots., in vermilion, with gum11Greek κίμμι, τό., with vitriol of copper12Greek χάλκανθος, ὁ, ἡ., with anything which leaves a record, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden book13Greek πίναξ, -ακος, ὁ. if they can be read together. One who writes on his body is liable. If he scratches14Without drawing blood, which would be a Sabbath violation of a different category. on his flesh, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.
הלכה: ד. כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ עַל עֲלֵי יְרָקוֹת. בְּמַשְׁקִין וּבְמֵי פֵירוֹת עַל הַלּוּח. פָּטוּר. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקַייְמַא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁלְּקַייְמַא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בְּטִיבֵּרִיָּא וְאוֹת אַחַת בְּצִיפֹּרִין חַייָב. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אִם אֵינָן נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּסְרָרָה. HALAKHAH: 4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material75Cf. Tosephta 11:8 (ed. Liebermann).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable76Babli 104b.. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”77If there is no liability if one writes two letters on walls in different rooms in the same house, there should be no liability if the letters were written in two different cities.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, 78As it stands, “in deviation”, the word makes no sense. The Medieval quotes (Rashba and Ritba on Babli 104b, Maggid Mishneh, R. Vidal of Toulouse on Maimonides 11:12) all read בסיד “with lime”. S. Liebermann proposes to read בְסִדְרָה “in sequence”, making the statement of the Yerushalmi identical with Rashi’s explanation in the Babli, scil, that the two letters were written on the same sheet in two different cities.בסררה.
עֵדִים שֶׁאֵינָן יוֹדְעִין לַחֲתוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּדְּיוֹ וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בְּסִיקְרָא. בְּסִיקְרָא וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין בַּדְּיוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָנוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּהִילְכוֹת שַׁבָּת אָנוּ מַתִּירִין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אֶלָּא מֶבִיא נְייָר חָלָק וּמְקָרֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶן וְהֵן חוֹתְמִין. וְלֹא כְתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. מַרְחִיב לִפְנֵיהֶן אֶת הַקֶּרַע. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן אָֽמְרִין. רוֹשֵׁם לִפְנֵיהֶן בַּמַּיִם. אִם בָּא וְעִרְעֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל הָעוֹר בְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב חַייָב. הָרוֹשֵׁם עַל הָעוֹר כְּתַבְנִית כְּתָב פָּטוּר. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַהֲלֹא בֶּן סַטְדָא לֹא הֵבִיא כְּשָׁפִים מִמִּצְרַיִם אֶלָּא בְכָךְ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטֶה אֶחָד אָנוּ מְאַבְּדִין כַּמָּה פִּיקְחִין. 79This paragraph also is in Giṭṭin 2:3, explained there in Notes 57–61. If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be (invalid)80With the text in Giṭṭin read: valid.. 81This sentence is changed from Giṭṭin to be adapted to the topic of Sabbath. Sketching on skin can be wiped off and is not permanent. The text in Tosephta 11:8 (ed. Liebermann) switches “liable” and “not liable”, probably incorrectly, cf. Giṭṭin Note 62.“If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rebbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt82In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 104b, Tosephta 11:15) this does not refer to writing on untanned hide but to writing on one’s own skin (Mishnah 4). Since these two sentences are not in Giṭṭin, the Yerushalmi seems to have the same tradition. In some sources (listed in Tosefta ki-Fshutah Šabbat p. 180) the name is סטרא, which Lieberman suggests is σωτήρ “savior”, characterizing him as a false Messiah.? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones83Since liability for erroneous acts means capital crime for intended actions. The definition of capital crime cannot be extended without a reliable tradition.?”
כָּתַב. לֹא חֻקֵק. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַמַּטִּיף. כָּתַב. לֹא הַשׁוֹפֵךְ. וְכָתַב. לֹא חוֹקֵק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חוֹקֵק. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא חוֹקֵק. בְּבוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין דִּינָרָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ חוֹקֵק. כְּגוֹן הָהֵן פִּינַקְסָא. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַמַּטִּיף. רִבִּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי שָׁלוֹם וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. חַד אָמַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא עִירֵב נְקוּדוֹת. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ עִירֵב נְקוּדוֹת. וְכָתַב. לֹא הַשׁוֹפֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּרַ בָּא. אִילֵּין בְּנֵי מַדִּינְחָא עָרוּמִין סַגִּין. כַּד חַד מִינְּהוֹן בָּעֵי מִשְׁלְחָה מִילָּה מִסְטֵרִיקוֹן לְחַבְרֵיהּ הוּא כְתַב בְּמִי מִילִין. וְהָהֵן דִּמְקַבֵּל כְּתָבַייָא הוּא שׁוֹפֵךְ דְּיוֹ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֲפַץ וְהוּא קוֹלֵט מְקוֹם הַכְּתָב. עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַׁבָּת מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרַווֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. והוּא שֶׁכָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב דְּיוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סִיקְרָא וְסִיקְרָא עַל גַּבֵּי דְּיוֹ חַייָב. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מְשַׁרְשִׁיָּא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק וּמִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב. 84A slightly truncated copy of a text in Giṭṭin 2:3, explained there in Notes 45–55. The text there makes it clear that the statement of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish does not refer to the question asked about R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement but refers to Mishnah 5 which states that writing on top of writing does not induce liability.He shall write85Deut. 24:1,3. There it is emphasized twice that divorce can be effectuated only by a written document. In R. Aqiba’s system, the additional vaw in each case counts for an additional mention, so that in all the requirement of writing is mentioned 4 times. Once it is needed for the fact that it is required; the other three mentionings may be read as restrictions., not engrave. And he shall write, not dropping points. He shall write, not pouring. He shall write, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. And he shall write, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. And he shall write, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.