משנה: כָּתַב בְּמֵי מַשְׁקִין בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת בַּאֲבַק דְּרָכִים בַּאֲבַק סוֹפְרִים וּבְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַייֵּם פָּטוּר. לְאַחַר יָדוֹ בְּרַגְלוֹ בְּפִיו וּבְמַרְפְּקוֹ. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת סָמוּךְ לַכְּתָב כָּתַב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב נִתְכַּווֵן לִכְתּוֹב חֵית וְכָתַב שְׁנֵי זַייְנִין אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ וְאֶחָד בַּקּוֹרָה עַל שְׁנֵי כוֹתְלֵי הַבַּיִת עַל שְׁנֵי דַפֵּי פִּינַקְס וְאֵין נֶהְגִּין זֶה עִם זֶה פָּטוּר. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת נוֹטָרִיקוֹן רַבִּי יְהושֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא מְחַייֵב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: MISHNAH: If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice15A drink close to colorless., with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow16The kinds of writing are too unusual; they cannot be classified as work.; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing17Even though now a word can be read that did not exist before, the minimum for liability is two letters., wrote over existing writing, intended to write ח and wrote זז18Since he intended to write one letter only, there can be no liability since the criminal intent was missing (Chapter 1, Note 52)., one on the ground and one on a beam19One letter is static, the other may be removed with the beam. This case is parallel to the one where one writes one letter each on walls in different rooms, which cannot be read together at one time., on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation20Even though the letter is read as a word, it is only one letter. Writing shorthand in abbreviation was the principle of Tironian notes. Latin scribere per notas really means writing in cipher., Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.
הלכה: ה׳. הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם וְנִתְכַּווֵן לִכְתוֹב יְהוּדָה וְשָׁכַח וְלֹא כָתַב דַּלֶּת. הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁם בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הוּא. מוֹחְקוֹ וּמְקַייְמוֹ הוּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מַעֲבִיר אֶת הַקּוֹלְמוֹס עָלָיו וּמְקַייְמוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵינוֹ כְתָב. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. כְּתָב הוּא. בְּשִׁיטָּתוֹ הֵשִׁיבוּהוּ. בְּשִׁיטָּתָךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. כְּתָב הוּא. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. הָא כְתָב כְּתָב הוּא. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. כְּתָב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב אֵינוֹ כְתָב. מָהוּ כְּתָב עַל גַּבֵּי כְתָב. חַד לְעֵיל מִן חַד. HALAKHAH: 5. 86Babli Giṭṭin 20a, Sopherim 5:3.“If he had to write the Name87The Tetragrammaton which may be written only in holy texts and only if the intention was that it should be holy. but intended to write Jehudah but forgot to write ד. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rebbi Jehudah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There88Here in Šabbat Mishnah 5. While the statement is anonymous and therefore represents the majority opinion, since R. Jehudah is not on record to disagree one has to conclude that he agrees. A stronger argument can be made against the rabbis who in Šabbat declare writing on top of writing as nothing and in the matter of a scroll designate it only as undesirable, not invalid. he says, it is not writing. But here89In the case of a biblical scroll where he agrees that the Name can be made legitimate by writing over writing., he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion90Since Mishnah 5 is anonymous, it certainly represents the rabbis’ opinion. They should have objected that his procedure is invalid. They note that for them the procedure is invalid but even for R. Jehudah it should at least he undesirable; he should not prescribe it.. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There91For the scroll. he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing92For the rules of the Sabbath.. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other93He never accepts writing on top of writing as valid under any circumstance. He proposes that the Name should be written a second time in the empty space between the lines, higher than the erroneous word..
מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָה. מֵאוֹת אַחַת אַתְּ לָמֵד כַּמָּה אוֹתוֹת. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra’s reason94Who in the Mishnah under certain circumstances considers writing one letter as completed work for the rules of the Sabbath.? From one letter one may infer several letters.