Menachot 34
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Huna states that a closed-in staircase opening (lul) between a house and an upper story requires one mezuza if it has one entrance and two mezuzot if it has two. Rav Papa infers from this that a room (indrona) with four doors requires four mezuzot, even if the resident typically utilizes only one of them. Amemar rules that a doorway situated at a corner is obligated in a mezuza; though Rav Ashi questions this due to the lack of formal doorposts (patzim), Amemar maintains that the edges of the walls themselves serve as the post.
Rav Papa observes a doorway in Mar Shmuel’s house that had only a left-side post yet was fitted with a mezuza. He questions this practice, as it seems to follow Rabbi Meir, who obligates a mezuza for a house with only one post—but even Rabbi Meir only holds that a mezuza is placed on the right side. The source for the right-side placement is derived from the word “beitecha” (your house), which is interpreted as “biatcha” (your entry). The connection between entry and the right side is either because a person begins their entry by leading with the right foot, or it is derived from the verse regarding Jehoiada the kohen, who placed a chest for donations to the right of the altar as people “came in.” The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis regarding a single doorpost centers on the plural phrasing of “mezuzot.” The Rabbis hold this implies a minimum of two posts, while Rabbi Meir explains how the term can signify a single post, based on the interpretations of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva who utilize various exegetical principles.
A braita derives the obligation to write the mezuza on parchment and then affix it to the wall, rather than writing it directly on the stones of the doorpost as might be understood from a simple reading of the verse.
Regarding tefillin, the four paragraphs are all essential (me’akvot); even the omission of a single letter, or the “tip” of the letter yud, renders them invalid. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav adds that every letter must be surrounded by blank parchment on all four sides. The Gemara discusses the source for the four compartments of the head tefillin (shel rosh). Rabbi Yishmael derives the number four from the number of mentions and spelling variations of the word “totafot,” while Rabbi Akiva explains that the word is a compound of “tat” (two in the Katpi language) and “pat” (two in the Afriki language).
A braita clarifies that while the tefillin shel rosh contain four separate scrolls in four compartments, the arm tefillin (shel yad) consist of all four paragraphs written on a single scroll. If one wrote the tefillin shel rosh on one scroll, it is valid, as long as it is put into four separate compartments. If one wrote the tefillin shel yad on four separate scrolls and placed them in one compartment, it is valid, though Rabbi Yehuda requires them to be glued together to appear as one. Rabbi Yosi rules that a tefillin shel rosh can be used on the arm if it is covering by one piece of leather. A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yosi as Rabbi Yochanan ruled that this is not possible as one cannot lower an item in sanctity, i.e. from the head to the arm.
The order of the paragraphs to be placed in the four compartments of the tefillin shel rosh is established as: kadesh and v’haya ki yeviacha on the right, followed by shema and v’haya im shamoa on the left. To resolve a contradiction with another source that reverses this, Abaye clarifies that each source refers to a different perspective of “right” and “left,” depending on whether one is looking from the perspective of the reader or the wearer. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam (among others) disagree about how to understand the specific order of the tefillin described in the Gemara. Rav concludes that if a scribe switches the order of the paragraphs, the tefillin are invalid.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 25th yahrzeit. “My father was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. He loved to watch my brother and I play on the tennis courts directly opposite our living room window. One day he came out and shocked us both with a huge, booming, topspin forehand. We didn’t know he played! I wish we had had more time together.”
Menachot 34
אַדַּעְתָּא דְּגִינָּה הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא.
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.
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא עָבְדִי כְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, וְרַב אָשֵׁי עָבֵיד כְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּמְרָא, וְהִילְכְתָא כְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּמְרָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: לוּל פָּתוּחַ מִן הַבַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּיה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פֶּתַח אֶחָד – חַיָּיב בִּמְזוּזָה אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִין – חַיָּיב בִּשְׁתֵּי מְזוּזוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, הַאי אִינְדְּרוֹנָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה בָּאבֵי – חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבַּע מְזוּזוֹת. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּרְגִיל בְּחַד.
§ 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.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הַאי פִּיתְחָא דְּאַקַּרְנָא חַיָּיב בִּמְזוּזָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ פַּצִּימִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָדֵי פַּצִּימֵי.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי מָר שְׁמוּאֵל, חֲזָא הָהוּא פִּיתְחָא דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אֶלָּא (פַּצִּים אֶחָד) [חַד פַּצִּימָא] מִשְּׂמָאלָא, וַעֲבִידָא לֵיהּ מְזוּזָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִיָּמִין, מִשְּׂמֹאל מִי אָמַר?
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?
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – ״בִּיאָתְךָ״, מִן הַיָּמִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִן הַיָּמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִשְּׂמֹאל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין, דְּכִי עָקַר אִינִישׁ כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּיַמִּינָא עָקַר.
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.
רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן אֲרוֹן אֶחָד וַיִּקֹּב חֹר בְּדַלְתּוֹ וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִיָּמִין בְּבוֹא אִישׁ בֵּית ה׳ וְנָתְנוּ שָׁמָּה הַכֹּהֲנִים שׁוֹמְרֵי הַסַּף אֶת כׇּל הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּבָא בֵית 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.
מַאי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא פַּצִּים אֶחָד, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב בִּמְזוּזָה, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? ״מְזוּזוֹת״ כְּתִיב.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְזוּזוֹת״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי מִיעוּט מְזוּזוֹת שְׁתַּיִם, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מְזוּזוֹת״ בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִמְזוּזָה אַחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁתֵּי״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁתֵּי״? זֶה בָּנָה אָב, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מְזוּזוֹת״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַחַת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – יָכוֹל יִכְתְּבֶנָּה עַל הָאֲבָנִים? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כְּתִיבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כְּתִיבָה – מָה לְהַלָּן עַל הַסֵּפֶר, אַף כָּאן עַל הַסֵּפֶר.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כְּתִיבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כְּתִיבָה, מָה לְהַלָּן עַל הָאֲבָנִים, אַף כָּאן עַל הָאֲבָנִים!
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין כְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִכְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין דָּנִין כְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִכְּתִיבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם בָּרוּךְ מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב עַל הַסֵּפֶר בַּדְּיוֹ״.
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).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״עַל מְזוּזוֹת״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ נֵילַף כְּתִיבָה כְּתִיבָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וַהֲדַר ״עַל הַמְּזוּזוֹת״.
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.
וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב [״וּכְתַבְתָּם״], הַאי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמָה לִי? אִי לָאו גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לִיכְתְּבַהּ אַאַבְנָא וְלִיקְבְּעַהּ אַסִּיפָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אַרְבַּע פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּפִילִּין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. פְּשִׁיטָא!
§ 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?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְקוֹצוֹ שֶׁל יוּד. וְהָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל אוֹת שֶׁאֵין גְּוִיל מוּקָּף לָהּ מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ, פְּסוּלָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״ ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״ ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
§ 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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יִכְתְּבֵם עַל אַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת, וְיַנִּיחֵם בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, זִכָּרוֹן אֶחָד אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה זִכְרוֹנוֹת. הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹתְבָן עַל אַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת וּמַנִּיחָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים בְּעוֹר אֶחָד.
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.
וְאִם כְּתָבָן בְּעוֹר אֶחָד, וְהִנִּיחָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים – יָצָא, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא רֶיוַח בֵּינֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן חוּט אוֹ מְשִׁיחָה בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְאִם אֵין חֲרִיצָן נִיכָּר – פְּסוּלוֹת.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבָן? תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד כּוֹתְבָהּ עַל עוֹר אֶחָד, וְאִם כְּתָבָהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עוֹרוֹת וְהִנִּיחָה בְּבַיִת אֶחָד – יָצָא. וְצָרִיךְ לְדַבֵּק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ״, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹת אַחַת מִבַּחוּץ – כָּךְ אוֹת אַחַת מִבִּפְנִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וּמוֹדֶה לִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרִיבִּי, שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל יָד וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, שֶׁטּוֹלֶה עוֹר עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וּמַנִּיחָהּ. מוֹדֶה? הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתַּיְיהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
אִינִי? וְהָא שְׁלַח רַב חֲנַנְיָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, וְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁל יָד, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּעַתִּיקָתָא, הָא בְּחַדְתָּתָא. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַזְמָנָה מִילְּתָא הִיא, דְּאַתְנִי עֲלַיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד סִדְרָן? ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי״ ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ״ מִיָּמִין, ״שְׁמַע״ ״וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ״ מִשְּׂמֹאל.
§ 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן מִימִינוֹ שֶׁל קוֹרֵא, כָּאן מִימִינוֹ שֶׁל מַנִּיחַ, וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא כְּסִדְרָן.
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.
אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: הֶחְלִיף פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ פְּסוּלוֹת. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא אֲמַרַן
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menachot Daf 31-37- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ontario, Canada
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Philadelphia, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Menachot 34
אַדַּעְתָּא דְּגִינָּה הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא.
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.
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא עָבְדִי כְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, וְרַב אָשֵׁי עָבֵיד כְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּמְרָא, וְהִילְכְתָא כְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּמְרָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: לוּל פָּתוּחַ מִן הַבַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּיה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פֶּתַח אֶחָד – חַיָּיב בִּמְזוּזָה אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִין – חַיָּיב בִּשְׁתֵּי מְזוּזוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, הַאי אִינְדְּרוֹנָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה בָּאבֵי – חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבַּע מְזוּזוֹת. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּרְגִיל בְּחַד.
§ 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.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הַאי פִּיתְחָא דְּאַקַּרְנָא חַיָּיב בִּמְזוּזָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ פַּצִּימִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָדֵי פַּצִּימֵי.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי מָר שְׁמוּאֵל, חֲזָא הָהוּא פִּיתְחָא דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ אֶלָּא (פַּצִּים אֶחָד) [חַד פַּצִּימָא] מִשְּׂמָאלָא, וַעֲבִידָא לֵיהּ מְזוּזָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִיָּמִין, מִשְּׂמֹאל מִי אָמַר?
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?
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – ״בִּיאָתְךָ״, מִן הַיָּמִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִן הַיָּמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִשְּׂמֹאל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בֵּיתֶךָ״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין, דְּכִי עָקַר אִינִישׁ כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּיַמִּינָא עָקַר.
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.
רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן אֲרוֹן אֶחָד וַיִּקֹּב חֹר בְּדַלְתּוֹ וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִיָּמִין בְּבוֹא אִישׁ בֵּית ה׳ וְנָתְנוּ שָׁמָּה הַכֹּהֲנִים שׁוֹמְרֵי הַסַּף אֶת כׇּל הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּבָא בֵית 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.
מַאי רַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא פַּצִּים אֶחָד, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב בִּמְזוּזָה, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? ״מְזוּזוֹת״ כְּתִיב.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְזוּזוֹת״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי מִיעוּט מְזוּזוֹת שְׁתַּיִם, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מְזוּזוֹת״ בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִמְזוּזָה אַחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁתֵּי״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁתֵּי״? זֶה בָּנָה אָב, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מְזוּזוֹת״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַחַת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – יָכוֹל יִכְתְּבֶנָּה עַל הָאֲבָנִים? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כְּתִיבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כְּתִיבָה – מָה לְהַלָּן עַל הַסֵּפֶר, אַף כָּאן עַל הַסֵּפֶר.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כְּתִיבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כְּתִיבָה, מָה לְהַלָּן עַל הָאֲבָנִים, אַף כָּאן עַל הָאֲבָנִים!
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.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין כְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִכְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין דָּנִין כְּתִיבָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת מִכְּתִיבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת לְדוֹרוֹת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם בָּרוּךְ מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב עַל הַסֵּפֶר בַּדְּיוֹ״.
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).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״עַל מְזוּזוֹת״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ נֵילַף כְּתִיבָה כְּתִיבָה? אָמַר קְרָא ״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וַהֲדַר ״עַל הַמְּזוּזוֹת״.
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.
וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב [״וּכְתַבְתָּם״], הַאי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמָה לִי? אִי לָאו גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לִיכְתְּבַהּ אַאַבְנָא וְלִיקְבְּעַהּ אַסִּיפָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אַרְבַּע פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּפִילִּין מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּתָב אֶחָד מְעַכְּבָן. פְּשִׁיטָא!
§ 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?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְקוֹצוֹ שֶׁל יוּד. וְהָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל אוֹת שֶׁאֵין גְּוִיל מוּקָּף לָהּ מֵאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹתֶיהָ, פְּסוּלָה.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״ ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״ ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
§ 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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יִכְתְּבֵם עַל אַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת, וְיַנִּיחֵם בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, זִכָּרוֹן אֶחָד אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה זִכְרוֹנוֹת. הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹתְבָן עַל אַרְבָּעָה עוֹרוֹת וּמַנִּיחָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים בְּעוֹר אֶחָד.
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.
וְאִם כְּתָבָן בְּעוֹר אֶחָד, וְהִנִּיחָן בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּתִּים – יָצָא, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא רֶיוַח בֵּינֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וְשָׁוִין, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן חוּט אוֹ מְשִׁיחָה בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְאִם אֵין חֲרִיצָן נִיכָּר – פְּסוּלוֹת.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבָן? תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד כּוֹתְבָהּ עַל עוֹר אֶחָד, וְאִם כְּתָבָהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עוֹרוֹת וְהִנִּיחָה בְּבַיִת אֶחָד – יָצָא. וְצָרִיךְ לְדַבֵּק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ״, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹת אַחַת מִבַּחוּץ – כָּךְ אוֹת אַחַת מִבִּפְנִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וּמוֹדֶה לִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרִיבִּי, שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל יָד וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, שֶׁטּוֹלֶה עוֹר עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וּמַנִּיחָהּ. מוֹדֶה? הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתַּיְיהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
אִינִי? וְהָא שְׁלַח רַב חֲנַנְיָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, וְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁל יָד, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּעַתִּיקָתָא, הָא בְּחַדְתָּתָא. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַזְמָנָה מִילְּתָא הִיא, דְּאַתְנִי עֲלַיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד סִדְרָן? ״קַדֶּשׁ לִי״ ״וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ״ מִיָּמִין, ״שְׁמַע״ ״וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ״ מִשְּׂמֹאל.
§ 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן מִימִינוֹ שֶׁל קוֹרֵא, כָּאן מִימִינוֹ שֶׁל מַנִּיחַ, וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא כְּסִדְרָן.
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.
אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: הֶחְלִיף פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ פְּסוּלוֹת. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא אֲמַרַן
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
