Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2018 | 讚壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 34

More cases of mezuzot are brought regarding whether or not certain types of entrances require mezuzot. Can mezuzot be written on other materials beside parchment? Details of the laws of tefillin are brought – how is the tefillin of the head different from the tefillin on the arm? Can one be used for the other?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讚注转讗 讚讙讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讜专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗讬转诪专 诇讜诇 驻转讜讞 诪谉 讛讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 驻转讞 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘砖转讬 诪讝讜讝讜转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讚专讜谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讘讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注 诪讝讜讝讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讞讚

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 讚讗拽专谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讬 驻爪讬诪讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 驻讬转讞讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻爪讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖诪讗诇讗 讜注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬诪讬谉 诪砖诪讗诇 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖诪讗诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转讱 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讚讻讬 注拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讻专注讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 注拽专

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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]鈥 (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.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽讞 讬讛讜讬讚注 讛讻讛谉 讗专讜谉 讗讞讚 讜讬拽讘 讞专 讘讚诇转讜 讜讬转谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讬诪讬谉 讘讘讜讗 讗讬砖 讘讬转 讛壮 讜谞转谞讜 砖诪讛 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讜诪专讬 讛住祝 讗转 讻诇 讛讻住祝 讛诪讜讘讗 讘讬转 讛壮

Rav Shmuel bar A岣 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II聽Kings 12:10). This indicates that an object designed for those entering a house is placed to the right of the one entering.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 驻爪讬诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讝讜讝转 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), in the plural, which indicates that there must be two doorposts.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讝转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 诪讬注讜讟 诪讝讜讝讜转 砖转讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讝讜讝转 讘驻专砖讛 砖谞讬讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讬 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟 诪注讟讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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 鈥渄oorposts鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), I would derive the minimum number of doorposts, which is two. When it says 鈥渄oorposts鈥 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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜注诇 砖转讬 讛诪讝讜讝转 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary. Rather, when the verse states: 鈥淎nd strike the lintel and the two doorposts鈥 (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 鈥渢wo,鈥 since the minimum of doorposts is two. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? This established a paradigm that anywhere where it is stated 鈥渄oorposts,鈥 it means only one doorpost, unless the verse specifies that it is referring to two doorposts.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻转讘转诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讻转讘谞讛 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻转讬讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讛住驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讛住驻专

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates鈥 (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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻转讬讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐

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.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讻转讬讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讻诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘专讜讱 诪驻讬讜 讬拽专讗 讗诇讬 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讻转讘 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

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: 鈥淎nd Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll鈥 (Jeremiah 36:18).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪讝讜讝转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讻转讬讘讛 转诪讛 讜讛讚专 注诇 讛诪讝讜讝讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The Merciful One states: 鈥淯pon the doorposts,鈥 which indicates that a mezuza should be written on the doorposts themselves, and yet you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between 鈥渨riting鈥 and 鈥渨riting,鈥 to teach that one writes it on parchment. Why isn鈥檛 the verse interpreted in accordance with its straightforward meaning? Rav Ashi said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam],鈥 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 鈥渦pon the doorposts鈥 of the house.

讜诪讗讞专 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讻转讘讗 讗讗讘谞讗 讜诇讬拽讘注讛 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall write them,鈥 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 鈥渨riting鈥 and 鈥渨riting鈥? 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.

讗专讘注 驻专砖讬讜转 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讗讞讚 诪注讻讘谉 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 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鈥9, 11鈥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鈥檛 it obvious that the inclusion of every letter is necessary?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讜爪讜 砖诇 讬讜讚 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讗讜转 砖讗讬谉 讙讜讬诇 诪讜拽祝 诇讛 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讛 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讟讟驻转 诇讟讟驻转 诇讟讜讟驻转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for totafot between your eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟讟 讘讻转驻讬 砖转讬诐 驻转 讘讗驻专讬拽讬 砖转讬诐

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讻转讘诐 注诇 讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 讜讬谞讬讞诐 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讘讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讝讻专讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讻专讜谉 讗讞讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讝讻专讜谞讜转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘谉 注诇 讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讘注讜专 讗讞讚

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: 鈥淎nd for a memorial between your eyes鈥 (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.

讜讗诐 讻转讘谉 讘注讜专 讗讞讚 讜讛谞讬讞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讬爪讗 讜爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜砖讜讬谉 砖谞讜转谉 讞讜讟 讗讜 诪砖讬讞讛 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讞专讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 驻住讜诇讜转

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讻讜转讘讛 注诇 注讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讻转讘讛 讘讗专讘注 注讜专讜转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讚讘拽 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讻砖诐 砖讗讜转 讗讞转 诪讘讞讜抓 讻讱 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讘讬 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖诇 讬讚 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖诇 专讗砖 砖讟讜诇讛 注讜专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞讛 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檚 statement one can infer that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇 讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛

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 岣nanya sent the following ruling in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注转讬拽转讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转转讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗转谞讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this ruling is stated with regard to old phylacteries, which have already been worn on one鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 住讚专谉 拽讚砖 诇讬 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 诪讬诪讬谉 砖诪注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 砖诪讜注 诪砖诪讗诇

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

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讜专讗 讻讗谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 砖诇 诪谞讬讞 讜讛拽讜专讗 拽讜专讗 讻住讚专谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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鈥10 to his right.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讞诇讬祝 驻专砖讬讜转讬讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉

Rav 岣nanel 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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 34

讗讚注转讗 讚讙讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗

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.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 注讘讚讬 讻专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讜专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗讬转诪专 诇讜诇 驻转讜讞 诪谉 讛讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 驻转讞 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘砖转讬 诪讝讜讝讜转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讚专讜谞讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讘讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注 诪讝讜讝讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讙讬诇 讘讞讚

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 讚讗拽专谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讬 驻爪讬诪讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 驻讬转讞讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻爪讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖诪讗诇讗 讜注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬诪讬谉 诪砖诪讗诇 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖诪讗诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转讱 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉 讚讻讬 注拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讻专注讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 注拽专

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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]鈥 (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.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬拽讞 讬讛讜讬讚注 讛讻讛谉 讗专讜谉 讗讞讚 讜讬拽讘 讞专 讘讚诇转讜 讜讬转谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讬诪讬谉 讘讘讜讗 讗讬砖 讘讬转 讛壮 讜谞转谞讜 砖诪讛 讛讻讛谞讬诐 砖讜诪专讬 讛住祝 讗转 讻诇 讛讻住祝 讛诪讜讘讗 讘讬转 讛壮

Rav Shmuel bar A岣 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II聽Kings 12:10). This indicates that an object designed for those entering a house is placed to the right of the one entering.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 驻爪讬诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讝讜讝转 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), in the plural, which indicates that there must be two doorposts.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讝转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 诪讬注讜讟 诪讝讜讝讜转 砖转讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讝讜讝转 讘驻专砖讛 砖谞讬讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讜讬 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讜讗讬谉 专讬讘讜讬 讗讞专 专讬讘讜讬 讗诇讗 诇诪注讟 诪注讟讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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 鈥渄oorposts鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), I would derive the minimum number of doorposts, which is two. When it says 鈥渄oorposts鈥 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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜注诇 砖转讬 讛诪讝讜讝转 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖转讬 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: This proof is not necessary. Rather, when the verse states: 鈥淎nd strike the lintel and the two doorposts鈥 (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 鈥渢wo,鈥 since the minimum of doorposts is two. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢wo鈥? This established a paradigm that anywhere where it is stated 鈥渄oorposts,鈥 it means only one doorpost, unless the verse specifies that it is referring to two doorposts.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻转讘转诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讻转讘谞讛 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻转讬讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讛住驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讛住驻专

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates鈥 (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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讻转讬讘讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讻转讬讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讛讗讘谞讬诐

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.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻转讬讘讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讻转讬讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讻诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘专讜讱 诪驻讬讜 讬拽专讗 讗诇讬 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讻转讘 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

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: 鈥淎nd Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll鈥 (Jeremiah 36:18).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 注诇 诪讝讜讝转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻转讘转诐 讻转讬讘讛 转诪讛 讜讛讚专 注诇 讛诪讝讜讝讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The Merciful One states: 鈥淯pon the doorposts,鈥 which indicates that a mezuza should be written on the doorposts themselves, and yet you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between 鈥渨riting鈥 and 鈥渨riting,鈥 to teach that one writes it on parchment. Why isn鈥檛 the verse interpreted in accordance with its straightforward meaning? Rav Ashi said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall write them [ukhtavtam],鈥 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 鈥渦pon the doorposts鈥 of the house.

讜诪讗讞专 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讻转讘讗 讗讗讘谞讗 讜诇讬拽讘注讛 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall write them,鈥 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 鈥渨riting鈥 and 鈥渨riting鈥? 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.

讗专讘注 驻专砖讬讜转 砖讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讗讞讚 诪注讻讘谉 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 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鈥9, 11鈥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鈥檛 it obvious that the inclusion of every letter is necessary?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讜爪讜 砖诇 讬讜讚 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讗讜转 砖讗讬谉 讙讜讬诇 诪讜拽祝 诇讛 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讛 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讟讟驻转 诇讟讟驻转 诇讟讜讟驻转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for totafot between your eyes鈥 (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: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟讟 讘讻转驻讬 砖转讬诐 驻转 讘讗驻专讬拽讬 砖转讬诐

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讻转讘诐 注诇 讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 讜讬谞讬讞诐 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讘讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讝讻专讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬谞讬讱 讝讻专讜谉 讗讞讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讝讻专讜谞讜转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘谉 注诇 讗专讘注讛 注讜专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讘注讜专 讗讞讚

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: 鈥淎nd for a memorial between your eyes鈥 (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.

讜讗诐 讻转讘谉 讘注讜专 讗讞讚 讜讛谞讬讞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 讘转讬诐 讬爪讗 讜爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜砖讜讬谉 砖谞讜转谉 讞讜讟 讗讜 诪砖讬讞讛 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讞专讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 驻住讜诇讜转

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讻讜转讘谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讻讜转讘讛 注诇 注讜专 讗讞讚 讜讗诐 讻转讘讛 讘讗专讘注 注讜专讜转 讜讛谞讬讞讛 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讚讘拽 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讻砖诐 砖讗讜转 讗讞转 诪讘讞讜抓 讻讱 讗讜转 讗讞转 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign for you upon your arm鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讘讬 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖诇 讬讚 讜讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖诇 专讗砖 砖讟讜诇讛 注讜专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞讛 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檚 statement one can infer that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖诇 讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛

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 岣nanya sent the following ruling in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注转讬拽转讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转转讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗转谞讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this ruling is stated with regard to old phylacteries, which have already been worn on one鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 住讚专谉 拽讚砖 诇讬 讜讛讬讛 讻讬 讬讘讬讗讱 诪讬诪讬谉 砖诪注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 砖诪讜注 诪砖诪讗诇

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

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 砖诇 拽讜专讗 讻讗谉 诪讬诪讬谞讜 砖诇 诪谞讬讞 讜讛拽讜专讗 拽讜专讗 讻住讚专谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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鈥10 to his right.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讞诇讬祝 驻专砖讬讜转讬讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉

Rav 岣nanel 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

Scroll To Top