Menachot 34

אדעתא דגינה הוא דעבידא

area is made for the purpose of reaching the garden, not for entering the house, and therefore even with regard to the entrance between the gatehouse and small room, one is exempt from placing a mezuza at the entrance of the small room.

אביי ורבא עבדי כרבה ורב יוסף ורב אשי עביד כרב ושמואל לחומרא והילכתא כרב ושמואל לחומרא

The Gemara relates that Abaye and Rava would act in accordance with the explanation of Rabba and Rav Yosef, i.e., they would not place a mezuza on the two entrances of a gatehouse, neither to the garden nor to the small room, in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis. And Rav Ashi would act in accordance with the explanation of Rav and Shmuel, stringently, i.e., following the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that both entrances require a mezuza. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the explanation of Rav and Shmuel, stringently.

איתמר לול פתוח מן הבית לעלייה אמר רב הונא אם יש לו פתח אחד חייב במזוזה אחת אם יש לו שני פתחין חייב בשתי מזוזות אמר רב פפא שמע מינה מדרב הונא האי אינדרונא דאית ליה ארבעה באבי חייב בארבע מזוזות פשיטא לא צריכא אף על גב דרגיל בחד

§ It was stated: With regard to an aperture that opens from the ceiling of a house occupied by one person to a loft occupied by another, with a walled staircase leading from the lower floor to the loft, Rav Huna says: If the staircase has one entrance, i.e., one doorway, either from the house or from the upper story, one is obligated to affix one mezuza; if it has two entrances, both from below and above, one is obligated to affix two mezuzot. Rav Pappa says: One can learn from that statement of Rav Huna that with regard to this type of room that has four gates, one is obligated to affix four mezuzot. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach that even though one is accustomed to using one particular gate, nevertheless, all four require a mezuza.

אמר אמימר האי פיתחא דאקרנא חייב במזוזה אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והא לית ליה פצימין אמר ליה עדי פצימי

Ameimar said: With regard to this entrance which is located at the corner of a house, one is obligated to affix a mezuza. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it does not have doorposts. Ameimar said to him: These [adei] are its doorposts, i.e., the end of the walls serve as its doorposts.

רב פפא איקלע לבי מר שמואל חזא ההוא פיתחא דלא הוה ליה אלא פצים אחד משמאלא ועבידא ליה מזוזה אמר ליה כמאן כרבי מאיר אימר דאמר רבי מאיר מימין משמאל מי אמר

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa happened to come to the house of Mar Shmuel, where he saw a certain entrance that had only one doorpost to the left of the entrance, and yet Mar Shmuel had affixed a mezuza to that doorpost. Rav Pappa said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you do this? Did you act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems one obligated to affix a mezuza to an entrance that has only one doorpost? But one can say that Rabbi Meir says that one must do so only in a case where the doorpost is to the right of the entrance. Does he say that it requires a mezuza if the entrance is to the left?

מאי היא דתניא ביתך ביאתך מן הימין אתה אומר מן הימין או אינו אלא משמאל תלמוד לומר ביתך מאי תלמודא אמר רבה דרך ביאתך מן הימין דכי עקר איניש כרעיה דימינא עקר

The Gemara asks: What is the source for this requirement that the mezuza be affixed to the right side? As it is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), the word beitekha is interpreted as biatekha, your entry, i.e., the mezuza must be affixed to the side by which you enter, which is from the right. Do you say it is from the right, or is it only from the left? Therefore, the verse states: Your house [beitekha]. The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? Rabba says: The mezuza is affixed in the way that you enter the house, which is from the right, as when a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed to the right side of the doorway.

רב שמואל בר אחא קמיה דרב פפא משמיה דרבא בר עולא אמר מהכא ויקח יהוידע הכהן ארון אחד ויקב חר בדלתו ויתן אותו אצל המזבח מימין בבוא איש בית ה׳ ונתנו שמה הכהנים שומרי הסף את כל הכסף המובא בית ה׳

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava bar Ulla that the requirement that the mezuza be affixed to the right of the entrance is derived from here: “And Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the House of the Lord; and the priests that kept the threshold put in there all the money that was brought into the House of the Lord” (II Kings 12:10). This indicates that an object designed for those entering a house is placed to the right of the one entering.

מאי רבי מאיר דתניא בית שאין לו אלא פצים אחד רבי מאיר מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין מאי טעמא דרבנן מזוזת כתיב

The Gemara further inquires: What is this statement of Rabbi Meir, referred to by Rav Pappa, that he deems one obligated to place a mezuza on an entrance that has only one doorpost? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a house that has only one doorpost, Rabbi Meir deems one obligated to affix a mezuza, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from affixing a mezuza. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? It is written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9), in the plural, which indicates that there must be two doorposts.

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר דתניא מזוזת שומע אני מיעוט מזוזות שתים כשהוא אומר מזוזת בפרשה שניה שאין תלמוד לומר הוי ריבוי אחר ריבוי ואין ריבוי אחר ריבוי אלא למעט מעטו הכתוב למזוזה אחת דברי רבי ישמעאל

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir, that one doorpost suffices to obligate one to affix a mezuza? As it is taught in a baraita: When it states “doorposts” (Deuteronomy 6:9), I would derive the minimum number of doorposts, which is two. When it says “doorposts” in the second passage (Deuteronomy 11:20), this also serves to teach a halakha, as otherwise there is no need for the verse to state this. This is one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that an amplification following an amplification is stated only in order to restrict its extent. In this manner the verse restricted the minimum number to one doorpost. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך כשהוא אומר על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזת שאין תלמוד לומר שתי מה תלמוד לומר שתי זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר מזוזות אינו אלא אחת עד שיפרט לך הכתוב שתים

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary. Rather, when the verse states: “And strike the lintel and the two doorposts” (Exodus 12:22), one can claim that there is a superfluous word in this verse, as there is no need for the verse to state “two,” since the minimum of doorposts is two. What is the meaning when the verse states “two”? This established a paradigm that anywhere where it is stated “doorposts,” it means only one doorpost, unless the verse specifies that it is referring to two doorposts.

תנו רבנן וכתבתם יכול יכתבנה על האבנים נאמר כאן כתיבה ונאמר להלן כתיבה מה להלן על הספר אף כאן על הספר

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). One might have thought that one writes a mezuza on the stones of the entrance. To counter this, an expression of writing is stated here, with regard to a mezuza, and an expression of writing is stated there. Just as there the mitzva of writing means on a book, i.e., parchment, so too, a mezuza must be written on a book.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן כתיבה ונאמר להלן כתיבה מה להלן על האבנים אף כאן על האבנים

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps, go [kalekh] this way, i.e., one can suggest a different interpretation: An expression of writing is stated here, with regard to a mezuza, and writing is stated there, with regard to the mitzva of writing the words of the Torah on stones upon the entry to Eretz Yisrael (Deuteronomy 27:3). Just as there, the words are written on the stones themselves, so too here, the mezuza should be written on the stones.

נראה למי דומה דנין כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות מכתיבה הנוהגת לדורות ואין דנין כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות מכתיבה שאינה נוהגת לדורות וכמו שנאמר להלן ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את הדברים האלה ואני כתב על הספר בדיו

The baraita continues: Let us see to which it is similar, i.e., which comparison appears more apt. We derive writing that is performed in all generations, i.e., that of a mezuza, from another writing that is performed in all generations, but we do not derive writing that is performed in all generations from writing that is not performed in all generations. And furthermore, a mezuza must be written with ink, as it is stated below: “And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll” (Jeremiah 36:18).

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי רחמנא אמר על מזוזת ואת אמרת נילף כתיבה כתיבה אמר קרא וכתבתם כתיבה תמה והדר על המזוזות

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The Merciful One states: “Upon the doorposts,” which indicates that a mezuza should be written on the doorposts themselves, and yet you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between “writing” and “writing,” to teach that one writes it on parchment. Why isn’t the verse interpreted in accordance with its straightforward meaning? Rav Ashi said to him: The verse states: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam],” which means that it should first be complete writing [ketiva tamma], i.e., the full passages written down, and only then should one place them “upon the doorposts” of the house.

ומאחר דכתיב האי גזירה שוה למה לי אי לאו גזירה שוה הוה אמינא ליכתבא אאבנא וליקבעה אסיפא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And since it is written: “And you shall write them,” from which it is derived that the mezuza should be written first and then placed on the doorpost, why do I need this verbal analogy between “writing” and “writing”? The Gemara explains that were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that one should write the passages of a mezuza on a stone, and afterward affix the stone to the doorpost. To counter this, the verbal analogy teaches us that a mezuza must be written on a scroll.

ארבע פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבות זו את זו ואפילו כתב אחד מעכבן פשיטא

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the four passages that are in the phylacteries, i.e., the two passages that are written in the mezuza and two additional passages (Exodus 13:1–9, 11–16), the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, and the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the inclusion of every letter is necessary?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא נצרכא אלא לקוצו של יוד והא נמי פשיטא לא נצרכא אלא לאידך דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל אות שאין גויל מוקף לה מארבע רוחותיה פסולה

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is necessary to state this ruling only to teach that even the absence of the thorn, i.e., a small stroke, of a letter yod prevents fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: But isn’t this also obvious, since the letter is not formed properly? Rather, it is necessary only according to another statement that Rav Yehuda says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Any letter that is not encircled with blank parchment on all four of its sides, as its ink connects to the letter above it, below it, preceding it, or succeeding it, is unfit.

תנו רבנן לטטפת לטטפת לטוטפת הרי כאן ארבע דברי רבי ישמעאל

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: “It shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for totafot between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), with the word totafot spelled deficient, without a vav before the final letter, in a way that can be read as singular; and again: “They shall be for totafot between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: “They shall be for totafot between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 11:18), this time spelled plene, with a vav before the final letter, in a manner that must be plural. There are four mentions of totafot here, as the third one is written in the plural and therefore counts as two. Consequently, it is derived that the phylacteries of the head must have four compartments. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך טט בכתפי שתים פת באפריקי שתים

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as the requirement of four compartments can be derived from the word totafot itself: The word tot in the language of Katfei means two, and the word pat in the language of Afriki also means two, and therefore totafot can be understood as a compound word meaning four.

תנו רבנן יכול יכתבם על ארבעה עורות ויניחם בארבעה בתים בארבעה עורות תלמוד לומר ולזכרון בין עיניך זכרון אחד אמרתי לך ולא שנים ושלשה זכרונות הא כיצד כותבן על ארבעה עורות ומניחן בארבעה בתים בעור אחד

The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a scribe should write the passages of the phylacteries of the head on four separate hides, i.e., parchments, and place them in four compartments of four hides, one passage in each compartment. Therefore, the verse states: “And for a memorial between your eyes” (Exodus 13:9). This teaches: I said to you that the phylacteries are one memorial, but not that they are two or three memorials, i.e., the phylacteries themselves must be one unit. How so? One writes the passages on four hides and places them in four compartments fashioned of one hide.

ואם כתבן בעור אחד והניחן בארבעה בתים יצא וצריך שיהא ריוח ביניהן דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך ושוין שנותן חוט או משיחה בין כל אחת ואחת ואם אין חריצן ניכר פסולות

And if a scribe wrote all four of them on one hide and placed them in four compartments by slitting the parchment between each of the passages, one who dons these phylacteries has fulfilled his obligation. And in such a case it is necessary for there to be a space between each of the passages, so that each can be placed in a separate compartment; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It is not necessary for there to be a space between them. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis agree that one places a string or a thicker band between each and every one of the four compartments. The baraita adds: And if their furrows, i.e., the lines marking the separation between the compartments, are not noticeable from the outside, the phylacteries are unfit.

תנו רבנן כיצד כותבן תפלה של יד כותבה על עור אחד ואם כתבה בארבע עורות והניחה בבית אחד יצא וצריך לדבק שנאמר והיה לך לאות על ידך כשם שאות אחת מבחוץ כך אות אחת מבפנים דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אינו צריך

The Sages taught in a baraita: How does a scribe write them? With regard to the phylacteries of the arm, he writes it on one hide. But if he wrote it on four separate hides and placed it in one compartment, one who wears it has fulfilled his obligation. And in such a case it is necessary to attach the four parchments, as it is stated: “And it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm” (Exodus 13:9). This teaches that just as the phylacteries of the arm are one sign on the outside, as the compartment is fashioned from a single hide, so too, they must be one sign on the inside, i.e., the four passages must be on a single parchment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is not necessary to attach the passages.

אמר רבי יוסי ומודה לי רבי יהודה בריבי שאם אין לו תפילין של יד ויש לו שתי תפילין של ראש שטולה עור על אחת מהן ומניחה מודה היינו פלוגתייהו אמר רבא מדבריו של רבי יוסי חזר בו רבי יהודה

Rabbi Yosei says: And Rabbi Yehuda the Distinguished [Beribbi] concedes to me that if one does not have phylacteries of the arm but has two phylacteries of the head, that he covers one of them with patches of hide, to render it like one compartment, and places it on his arm. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yosei say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes to him in this case? This is the very situation in which their dispute applies, as they disagree over whether or not the passages of the phylacteries of the arm may be written on separate parchments. Rava said: From Rabbi Yosei’s statement one can infer that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.

איני והא שלח רב חנניה משמיה דרבי יוחנן תפלה של יד עושין אותה של ראש ושל ראש אין עושין אותה של יד לפי שאין מורידין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה

Rabbi Yosei said that all agree that one can convert phylacteries of the head into phylacteries of the arm. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav Ḥananya sent the following ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one has phylacteries of the arm, he can convert it to phylacteries of the head, but if one has phylacteries of the head, he cannot convert it to phylacteries of the arm, because one does not reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity of phylacteries of the head to a level of lesser sanctity of phylacteries of the arm.

לא קשיא הא בעתיקתא הא בחדתתא ולמאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא דאתני עלייהו מעיקרא

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this ruling is stated with regard to old phylacteries, which have already been worn on one’s head and therefore have a greater level of sanctity, whereas that ruling is stated with regard to new phylacteries, which have not yet been used. The Gemara adds: And according to the one who says that designation is significant, i.e., once one designates an item for use in fulfilling a particular mitzva, it assumes the sanctity of an item used for mitzvot, this ruling is stated with regard to a case where he stipulated with regard to them from the outset that he may convert it from phylacteries of the head to phylacteries of the arm, and only in this circumstance it is permitted to convert them.

תנו רבנן כיצד סדרן קדש לי והיה כי יביאך מימין שמע והיה אם שמוע משמאל

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: How does one arrange the four passages inside the phylacteries? The passage of: “Sanctify unto Me” (Exodus 13:1–10), and the passage of: “And it shall be when He shall bring you” (Exodus 13:11–16), are placed on the right; the passage of: “Listen, O Israel” (Deuteronomy 6:4–9), and the passage of: “And it shall come to pass, if you shall hearken diligently” (Deuteronomy 11:13–21), are placed on the left.

והתניא איפכא אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן מימינו של קורא כאן מימינו של מניח והקורא קורא כסדרן

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one places them in the opposite manner, with the first two passages on the left and the latter two on the right? Abaye said that it is not difficult: Here it means to the right of the reader, i.e., one who is standing opposite the one donning the phylacteries, whereas there it means to the right of the one who is donning the phylacteries. And in this manner the reader reads the passages in their order, as they appear in the Torah, starting with Exodus 13:1–10 to his right.

אמר רב חננאל אמר רב החליף פרשיותיה פסולות אמר אביי לא אמרן

Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: If one exchanged its passages, i.e., placed them in a different order within the compartment, the phylacteries are unfit. Abaye said: We did not say this