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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 22, 2021 | 讬壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Yoma 11

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shana Lowell for the refuah of Bobby Schochet, Shaina Rochel bat Rivka. Bobby is an artist, loving mother, grandmother, aunt, and friend. She is both loyal and giving, and has always been supportive of women鈥檚 learning.聽And for a refuah shleima for聽 Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

What types of places are obligated in mezuza? Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yehuda disagree regarding a storage room. The gemara brings various braitot and explains them according to each opinion. Is the house of a woman or partners obligated? Why would one think it is not? Can those houses also become a leprous house? How are the verses, which are masculine and singular to be understood? What about a shul?

讻诇 讛砖注专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜抓 诪砖注专 谞讬拽谞讜专 砖诇驻谞讬诐 诪诪谞讜 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉

All the gates that were there on the east side of the Temple courtyard did not have a mezuza except for the Gate of Nicanor, as in the courtyard just inside the gate was the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there is an obligation to affix a mezuza. Therefore, a mezuza was affixed to the gate as well.

诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬讗

Let us say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a difficulty arises. The principle is that decrees are issued only to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition. The fact that a mezuza was affixed to the Parhedrin chamber itself is due to a rabbinic decree, and will we then proceed to issue a decree to affix a mezuza on the gate before the chamber in order to prevent violation of the existing decree? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is not difficult, as the entire obligation to affix the mezuza on both the chamber and the gate is the result of a single decree.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖注专讬讱 讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 诪讚讬谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 注讬讬专讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 讞讜讘转 诪爪讜讛 诇诪拽讜诐 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻转讘转诐 注诇 诪讝讜讝讜转 讘讬转讱 讜讘砖注专讬讱

搂 Apropos the mezuza in the High Priest鈥檚 chamber, the Gemara discusses other halakhot of mezuza. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9): With regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza in that place, due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淎nd you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 住驻专讗 讛谞讬 讗讘讜诇讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讞讝讜拽 诇讗拽专讗 讚讻讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讗 讚讻讜讘讬 讙讜驻讛 转讘注讬 诪讝讜讝讛 讚讛讗 讗讬转 讘讛 讚讬专讛 诇砖讜诪专 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛

Abaye said to Rav Safra: If there is an obligation to affix a mezuza on city gates, with regard to those city gates [abbulei] of Me岣za, a city with a Jewish majority, what is the reason that the Sages did not affix a mezuza on them? Rav Safra said to him: Those gates are not the city gates. They are made as reinforcement to the fort [akra] of turrets above the gate, and therefore no mezuza is required. Abaye said to him: And shouldn鈥檛 the fort of turrets itself require a mezuza, since there is a residence for the prison guard in the fort? As, wasn鈥檛 a similar case taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant requires a mezuza? Although no one lives in the synagogue itself, since the attendant lives in an adjacent room, the synagogue requires a mezuza.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讝转 讬讞讬讚 谞讘讚拽转 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘讜注 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

Rather, Abaye said: The reason that no mezuza was affixed there was due to the danger involved. The gates of a city populated by Jews certainly require a mezuza; however, since gentiles live there as well, the danger is that the gentiles would suspect the Jews of witchcraft or espionage, as it was taught in a baraita: The mezuza belonging to an individual is examined twice every seven years to determine whether it was stolen or became disqualified. And in order to avoid excessive burden on the community, the mezuza belonging to the public is examined twice in a fifty-year Jubilee period.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗专讟讘讬谉 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讘讜讚拽 诪讝讜讝讜转 讘砖讜拽 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖诇 爪驻讜专讬 讜诪爪讗讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 讜谞讟诇 诪诪谞讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讘讬注 讛讬讝拽讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注讙诇转 讘拽专 转拽讞 讘讬讚讱 讜讗诪专转 诇讝讘讜讞 诇讛壮 讘讗转讬

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving an examiner [artavin], who was examining mezuzot in the upper marketplace of Tzippori during a period when decrees were issued against the Jewish people, and a Roman official [kasdor] found him and collected a fine of one thousand zuz from him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is permanent it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God鈥檚 command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God鈥 (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.

转谞讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 专讜讞爪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讜讞爪讜转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专驻转 讘拽专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛

Rav Kahana taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: A storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, due to the fact that the women make use of them. And what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women bathe in them. Since women bathe there unclothed, it is inappropriate to affix a mezuza there. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The reason that there is no requirement to affix a mezuza there is due to the fact that women bathe there; one can learn by inference that standard buildings of this kind, where women do not bathe, are obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza there. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A cattle barn is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, unrelated to whether or not women bathe there?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专驻转 讘拽专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛

Rather, the term should be understood otherwise. What is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women adorn themselves there, and this is what the baraita is teaching: Although these structures are solid and clean to the extent that the women adorn themselves in them, they are exempt from the obligation of mezuza since they are not residences. Rav Kahana said to him: Are you saying that structures where the women adorn themselves are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A cattle stable is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, and a barn in which women adorn themselves is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪转拽砖讟讜转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 住转诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜讬砖 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rather, what have you to say, that with regard to the requirement of mezuza the status of places where women adorn themselves is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Just as there are different opinions in that case, in my opinion, the status of standard cattle barns is also subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita that it is written: Upon the doorposts of your house, meaning your house that is designated as a residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza, and some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza. Apparently, the Rabbis dispute the requirement of affixing a mezuza in a standard stable.

讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛

Actually they said: There is a legal tradition that a building housing a bathroom, and a building housing a tannery [burseki], and a bathhouse, and a building housing a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use are exempt from the obligation of mezuza. This baraita is inconsistent with the opinions of both Rav Kahana and Rav Yehuda. Therefore, Rav Kahana interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rav Yehuda interprets it according to his line of reasoning.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讘住转诐 讜讬砖 砖诪讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘住转诐 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 专讜讞爪讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛

Rav Kahana interprets it according to his line of reasoning: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard and they are not used for bathing or other immodest acts. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard. In truth they said the following with regard to a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use; and what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It is that women bathe there. These places are exempt from the obligation of mezuza.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪专讞抓 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪专讞抓 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪专讞抓 讚讬讞讬讚 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪专讞抓 讚专讘讬诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诪专讞抓 讚讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If so, that make use in this context means bathe, this is identical to the bathhouse. Why would the baraita need to list both a bathhouse and a place where women bathe? The Gemara answers: The baraita teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of the public, and it teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of an individual. As it could enter your mind to say: A bathhouse of the public, whose filth is extensive, is exempt from mezuza; however, the bathhouse of an individual, whose filth is not extensive, as only women of that house bathe there, I would say it is obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the bathhouse of an individual is also exempt.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讜讬砖 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪转拽砖讟讜转 讗讘诇 住转诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛

And Rav Yehuda interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and this is what it is teaching: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza even in a case where women adorn themselves there. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where women adorn themselves there. However, in a case where use of the building is standard, everyone agrees that these structures are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. In truth they said that a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, even though women adorn themselves there, are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, because its filth is extensive.

讜诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖注专讬讱 讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 诪讚讬谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 注讬讬专讜转 讜专驻转 讜诇讜诇讬谉 讜诪转讘谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, in cases where use of the building is standard, does everyone agree that a storehouse is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to the mitzva to affix a mezuza: And upon your gates, meaning that with regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, and a barn, and chicken coops, and a hay storehouse, and wine storehouses, and oil storehouses, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even

讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 诪讬讜讞讚 诇讚讬专讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇讚讬专讛

a gatehouse, used to guard the entrance to a courtyard, a portico [akhsadra], an open porch, and a balcony serving as a corridor to several residences. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designated for residence and is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too all similar structures are obligated. This is to the exclusion of those structures that are not designated for residence but for other purposes, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 讛注砖讜讬 诇讻讘讜讚 讗祝 讻诇 讛注砖讜讬 诇讻讘讜讚 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讻讘讜讚

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designed to honor people who enter it, so too, all places that are designed to honor those who enter are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those structures that are not designed to honor.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 砖讛讜讗 讞讜诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讜诇 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽讜讚砖 转讬讜讘转讗

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even the Temple Mount and its chambers and courtyards. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those places that are sacred. For the purposes of this discussion, the baraita teaches that there are Sages who hold that barns and storehouses whose use is standard require a mezuza, contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda that everyone agrees that these structures are exempt. Consequently, the baraita is a conclusive refutation of his opinion and support for the contention of Rav Kahana that this matter is the subject of a tannaitic debate.

转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖砖讛 砖注专讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讜砖注专 讛诪讚讬 讜砖注专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜砖注专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞转 讘砖砖讛 讜住诇拽转 讘砖讘注讛

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught a baraita before Rava: Six gates are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza: The gate of a storehouse for hay, and of a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, and a Median gate, which is a dome, lacking two doorposts and a lintel, and an unroofed gate, and a gate that is not ten handbreadths high. Rava said to him: You began your statement with six gates that do not require a mezuza, and you concluded with seven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讛诪讚讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 注砖专讛 砖讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

Rava said to him: The obligation to affix a mezuza to a Median gate is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the gateway of a dome, i.e., an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. And they agree that if, at the foot of the entrance, there are doorposts ten handbreadths high before the arch of the dome begins narrowing the width of the entrance, it is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza since the sides form a usual doorway. Abaye said: However, everyone agrees that if the entire opening is only ten handbreadths high and at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts not even three handbreadths high, it is nothing. It is not considered an entrance and is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Alternatively, if at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but the entrance is not ten handbreadths high, it is nothing, as it is not considered a viable entrance.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诇讞讜拽 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐

They disagree only with regard to a case where the entrance is ten handbreadths high, and at the foot of the entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but at no point is the width of the opening four handbreadths. However, the space in the dome alongside the entrance is wide enough to theoretically carve out space to complete a width of four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if circumstances would theoretically allow one to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, its legal status is as if one carves out the space to complete it. Therefore, the opening is considered wide enough to require a mezuza. And the Rabbis hold: One does not carve out the space to complete it. Since the width of the opening is not actually four handbreadths, it is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛讗砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讬转讱 讜诇讗 讘讬转讛 讘讬转讱 讜诇讗 讘转讬讛诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A synagogue, a woman鈥檚 house, and a house jointly owned by partners are all obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would these structures be exempt? Lest you say that it is written: 鈥淵our house,鈥 in the masculine, and not her house; 鈥淵our house,鈥 in the singular, and not their house, excluding a jointly owned house. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that those houses are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza like all others.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讛谞讬 讘注讜 讞讬讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 讘注讜 讞讬讬

And say it is indeed so that a woman鈥檚 house and a jointly owned house are exempt. The Gemara rejects this possibility: Immediately following the mitzva of mezuza is the reward for its fulfillment, as the verse states: 鈥淪o that your days be numerous, as well as the days of your sons鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21). If these structures were exempt from the mitzva, the question would arise: Do these men and individuals require long life, and these, meaning women and partners, do not require long life? The mitzva of mezuza clearly applies to all of them.

讗诇讗 讘讬转讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 讜讻讬 注拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讻专注讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 注拽专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara then asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the verse: Your house, if every house is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? The Gemara answers: This could be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Your house is interpreted to mean that the mezuza is placed in the way that you enter the house. And when a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed on the right side of the doorway.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讘讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讘讬转 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 Apropos the baraita just cited, the Gemara cites a related baraita that addresses a different topic. It was taught in another baraita: A synagogue, a house jointly owned by partners, and a woman鈥檚 house become impure with the impurity of leprosy of the house, like all other houses. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why wouldn鈥檛 they become impure? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it is written with regard to leprosy: 鈥淎nd the one whom the house is his will come鈥 (Leviticus 14:35), which could be interpreted: His and not hers; his and not theirs, to the exclusion of a house owned by a woman or by partners. Therefore, it teaches us that these houses are also included in this halakha.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讘讬转 讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 讗诇讗 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬 砖诪讬讬讞讚 讘讬转讜 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讻诇讬讜 讜讗讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪驻专住诪讜 讻砖诪驻谞讛 讗转 讘讬转讜 驻专讟 诇诪砖讗讬诇 讻诇讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

And say it is indeed so that a woman鈥檚 house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: 鈥淚n a house of the land of your possession鈥 (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.

讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讬讜 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讘讬转 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讜 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara raises another question: And with regard to a synagogue, does it become impure with the impurity of leprosy? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that synagogues and study halls become impure with the impurity of leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: And the one whom the house is his will come; this is referring to a house that is designated for him, excluding those houses that are not designated for him but are public property.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita, which states that a synagogue can become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, which states that a synagogue cannot become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, as it is a dwelling. With regard to a synagogue in which there is no residence, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. Rabbi Meir deems a synagogue like a residence with regard to both a mezuza and its susceptibility to leprosy.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛

And if you wish, say instead a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot with regard to the synagogue. Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not difficult. This baraita, which states that it can become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is a place of residence; that baraita, which states that it cannot become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is not a place of residence.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛

And if you wish, say instead yet a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to synagogues in which there is not a place of residence,

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 10-16 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the laws of Mezuza and if the entrances of the Temple needed mezuzot.聽 We...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 11: The Mezuzah-less Gates of Mehoza

On mezuzot. In Mehoza. It was a Jewish city, so why didn't the town gates have a mezuzah? Or were...

Yoma 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 11

讻诇 讛砖注专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜抓 诪砖注专 谞讬拽谞讜专 砖诇驻谞讬诐 诪诪谞讜 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉

All the gates that were there on the east side of the Temple courtyard did not have a mezuza except for the Gate of Nicanor, as in the courtyard just inside the gate was the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there is an obligation to affix a mezuza. Therefore, a mezuza was affixed to the gate as well.

诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讞讚讗 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬讗

Let us say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a difficulty arises. The principle is that decrees are issued only to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition. The fact that a mezuza was affixed to the Parhedrin chamber itself is due to a rabbinic decree, and will we then proceed to issue a decree to affix a mezuza on the gate before the chamber in order to prevent violation of the existing decree? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is not difficult, as the entire obligation to affix the mezuza on both the chamber and the gate is the result of a single decree.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖注专讬讱 讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 诪讚讬谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 注讬讬专讜转 讬砖 讘讛谉 讞讜讘转 诪爪讜讛 诇诪拽讜诐 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻转讘转诐 注诇 诪讝讜讝讜转 讘讬转讱 讜讘砖注专讬讱

搂 Apropos the mezuza in the High Priest鈥檚 chamber, the Gemara discusses other halakhot of mezuza. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9): With regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza in that place, due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淎nd you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 住驻专讗 讛谞讬 讗讘讜诇讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讚讜 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讞讝讜拽 诇讗拽专讗 讚讻讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讗 讚讻讜讘讬 讙讜驻讛 转讘注讬 诪讝讜讝讛 讚讛讗 讗讬转 讘讛 讚讬专讛 诇砖讜诪专 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛

Abaye said to Rav Safra: If there is an obligation to affix a mezuza on city gates, with regard to those city gates [abbulei] of Me岣za, a city with a Jewish majority, what is the reason that the Sages did not affix a mezuza on them? Rav Safra said to him: Those gates are not the city gates. They are made as reinforcement to the fort [akra] of turrets above the gate, and therefore no mezuza is required. Abaye said to him: And shouldn鈥檛 the fort of turrets itself require a mezuza, since there is a residence for the prison guard in the fort? As, wasn鈥檛 a similar case taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant requires a mezuza? Although no one lives in the synagogue itself, since the attendant lives in an adjacent room, the synagogue requires a mezuza.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讝转 讬讞讬讚 谞讘讚拽转 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘讜注 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

Rather, Abaye said: The reason that no mezuza was affixed there was due to the danger involved. The gates of a city populated by Jews certainly require a mezuza; however, since gentiles live there as well, the danger is that the gentiles would suspect the Jews of witchcraft or espionage, as it was taught in a baraita: The mezuza belonging to an individual is examined twice every seven years to determine whether it was stolen or became disqualified. And in order to avoid excessive burden on the community, the mezuza belonging to the public is examined twice in a fifty-year Jubilee period.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗专讟讘讬谉 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讘讜讚拽 诪讝讜讝讜转 讘砖讜拽 讛注诇讬讜谉 砖诇 爪驻讜专讬 讜诪爪讗讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 讜谞讟诇 诪诪谞讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讘讬注 讛讬讝拽讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注讙诇转 讘拽专 转拽讞 讘讬讚讱 讜讗诪专转 诇讝讘讜讞 诇讛壮 讘讗转讬

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving an examiner [artavin], who was examining mezuzot in the upper marketplace of Tzippori during a period when decrees were issued against the Jewish people, and a Roman official [kasdor] found him and collected a fine of one thousand zuz from him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is permanent it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God鈥檚 command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God鈥 (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.

转谞讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 专讜讞爪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讜讞爪讜转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专驻转 讘拽专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛

Rav Kahana taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: A storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, due to the fact that the women make use of them. And what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women bathe in them. Since women bathe there unclothed, it is inappropriate to affix a mezuza there. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The reason that there is no requirement to affix a mezuza there is due to the fact that women bathe there; one can learn by inference that standard buildings of this kind, where women do not bathe, are obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza there. But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A cattle barn is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, unrelated to whether or not women bathe there?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专驻转 讘拽专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛

Rather, the term should be understood otherwise. What is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women adorn themselves there, and this is what the baraita is teaching: Although these structures are solid and clean to the extent that the women adorn themselves in them, they are exempt from the obligation of mezuza since they are not residences. Rav Kahana said to him: Are you saying that structures where the women adorn themselves are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A cattle stable is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, and a barn in which women adorn themselves is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪转拽砖讟讜转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 住转诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讜讬砖 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rather, what have you to say, that with regard to the requirement of mezuza the status of places where women adorn themselves is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Just as there are different opinions in that case, in my opinion, the status of standard cattle barns is also subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita that it is written: Upon the doorposts of your house, meaning your house that is designated as a residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza, and some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza. Apparently, the Rabbis dispute the requirement of affixing a mezuza in a standard stable.

讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛

Actually they said: There is a legal tradition that a building housing a bathroom, and a building housing a tannery [burseki], and a bathhouse, and a building housing a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use are exempt from the obligation of mezuza. This baraita is inconsistent with the opinions of both Rav Kahana and Rav Yehuda. Therefore, Rav Kahana interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rav Yehuda interprets it according to his line of reasoning.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜诇讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讘住转诐 讜讬砖 砖诪讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘住转诐 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讛谞砖讬诐 谞讗讜转讜转 讘讛谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讗讜转讜转 专讜讞爪讜转 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛

Rav Kahana interprets it according to his line of reasoning: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard and they are not used for bathing or other immodest acts. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard. In truth they said the following with regard to a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use; and what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It is that women bathe there. These places are exempt from the obligation of mezuza.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪专讞抓 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪专讞抓 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪专讞抓 讚讬讞讬讚 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪专讞抓 讚专讘讬诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诪专讞抓 讚讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If so, that make use in this context means bathe, this is identical to the bathhouse. Why would the baraita need to list both a bathhouse and a place where women bathe? The Gemara answers: The baraita teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of the public, and it teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of an individual. As it could enter your mind to say: A bathhouse of the public, whose filth is extensive, is exempt from mezuza; however, the bathhouse of an individual, whose filth is not extensive, as only women of that house bathe there, I would say it is obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the bathhouse of an individual is also exempt.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬转讱 讘讬转讱 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讱 驻专讟 诇讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讜讬砖 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪转拽砖讟讜转 讗讘诇 住转诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞砖讬诐 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讝讜讛诪讬讛

And Rav Yehuda interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and this is what it is teaching: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza even in a case where women adorn themselves there. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where women adorn themselves there. However, in a case where use of the building is standard, everyone agrees that these structures are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. In truth they said that a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, even though women adorn themselves there, are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, because its filth is extensive.

讜诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖注专讬讱 讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 诪讚讬谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 砖注专讬 注讬讬专讜转 讜专驻转 讜诇讜诇讬谉 讜诪转讘谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, in cases where use of the building is standard, does everyone agree that a storehouse is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to the mitzva to affix a mezuza: And upon your gates, meaning that with regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, and a barn, and chicken coops, and a hay storehouse, and wine storehouses, and oil storehouses, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even

讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 诪讬讜讞讚 诇讚讬专讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇讚讬专讛

a gatehouse, used to guard the entrance to a courtyard, a portico [akhsadra], an open porch, and a balcony serving as a corridor to several residences. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designated for residence and is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too all similar structures are obligated. This is to the exclusion of those structures that are not designated for residence but for other purposes, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讬转 讛讘讜专住拽讬 讜讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 讛注砖讜讬 诇讻讘讜讚 讗祝 讻诇 讛注砖讜讬 诇讻讘讜讚 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讻讘讜讚

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designed to honor people who enter it, so too, all places that are designed to honor those who enter are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those structures that are not designed to honor.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讛诇砖讻讜转 讜讛注讝专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 诪讛 讘讬转 砖讛讜讗 讞讜诇 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讜诇 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽讜讚砖 转讬讜讘转讗

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even the Temple Mount and its chambers and courtyards. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those places that are sacred. For the purposes of this discussion, the baraita teaches that there are Sages who hold that barns and storehouses whose use is standard require a mezuza, contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda that everyone agrees that these structures are exempt. Consequently, the baraita is a conclusive refutation of his opinion and support for the contention of Rav Kahana that this matter is the subject of a tannaitic debate.

转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖砖讛 砖注专讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讝讜讝讛 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讜讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讜砖注专 讛诪讚讬 讜砖注专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜砖注专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞转 讘砖砖讛 讜住诇拽转 讘砖讘注讛

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught a baraita before Rava: Six gates are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza: The gate of a storehouse for hay, and of a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, and a Median gate, which is a dome, lacking two doorposts and a lintel, and an unroofed gate, and a gate that is not ten handbreadths high. Rava said to him: You began your statement with six gates that do not require a mezuza, and you concluded with seven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖注专 讛诪讚讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 注砖专讛 砖讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

Rava said to him: The obligation to affix a mezuza to a Median gate is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the gateway of a dome, i.e., an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. And they agree that if, at the foot of the entrance, there are doorposts ten handbreadths high before the arch of the dome begins narrowing the width of the entrance, it is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza since the sides form a usual doorway. Abaye said: However, everyone agrees that if the entire opening is only ten handbreadths high and at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts not even three handbreadths high, it is nothing. It is not considered an entrance and is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Alternatively, if at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but the entrance is not ten handbreadths high, it is nothing, as it is not considered a viable entrance.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讬砖 讘专讙诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诇讞讜拽 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐

They disagree only with regard to a case where the entrance is ten handbreadths high, and at the foot of the entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but at no point is the width of the opening four handbreadths. However, the space in the dome alongside the entrance is wide enough to theoretically carve out space to complete a width of four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if circumstances would theoretically allow one to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, its legal status is as if one carves out the space to complete it. Therefore, the opening is considered wide enough to require a mezuza. And the Rabbis hold: One does not carve out the space to complete it. Since the width of the opening is not actually four handbreadths, it is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛讗砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪讝讜讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘讬转讱 讜诇讗 讘讬转讛 讘讬转讱 讜诇讗 讘转讬讛诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: A synagogue, a woman鈥檚 house, and a house jointly owned by partners are all obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would these structures be exempt? Lest you say that it is written: 鈥淵our house,鈥 in the masculine, and not her house; 鈥淵our house,鈥 in the singular, and not their house, excluding a jointly owned house. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that those houses are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza like all others.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讛谞讬 讘注讜 讞讬讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 讘注讜 讞讬讬

And say it is indeed so that a woman鈥檚 house and a jointly owned house are exempt. The Gemara rejects this possibility: Immediately following the mitzva of mezuza is the reward for its fulfillment, as the verse states: 鈥淪o that your days be numerous, as well as the days of your sons鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21). If these structures were exempt from the mitzva, the question would arise: Do these men and individuals require long life, and these, meaning women and partners, do not require long life? The mitzva of mezuza clearly applies to all of them.

讗诇讗 讘讬转讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 讜讻讬 注拽专 讗讬谞讬砖 讻专注讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 注拽专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara then asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the verse: Your house, if every house is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? The Gemara answers: This could be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Your house is interpreted to mean that the mezuza is placed in the way that you enter the house. And when a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed on the right side of the doorway.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讘讬转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讘讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讘讬转 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 Apropos the baraita just cited, the Gemara cites a related baraita that addresses a different topic. It was taught in another baraita: A synagogue, a house jointly owned by partners, and a woman鈥檚 house become impure with the impurity of leprosy of the house, like all other houses. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why wouldn鈥檛 they become impure? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it is written with regard to leprosy: 鈥淎nd the one whom the house is his will come鈥 (Leviticus 14:35), which could be interpreted: His and not hers; his and not theirs, to the exclusion of a house owned by a woman or by partners. Therefore, it teaches us that these houses are also included in this halakha.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讘讬转 讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讻诐 讗诇讗 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬 砖诪讬讬讞讚 讘讬转讜 诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讻诇讬讜 讜讗讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪驻专住诪讜 讻砖诪驻谞讛 讗转 讘讬转讜 驻专讟 诇诪砖讗讬诇 讻诇讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

And say it is indeed so that a woman鈥檚 house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: 鈥淚n a house of the land of your possession鈥 (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.

讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讬讜 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讗 讗砖专 诇讜 讛讘讬转 诪讬 砖诪讬讜讞讚 诇讜 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara raises another question: And with regard to a synagogue, does it become impure with the impurity of leprosy? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that synagogues and study halls become impure with the impurity of leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: And the one whom the house is his will come; this is referring to a house that is designated for him, excluding those houses that are not designated for him but are public property.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita, which states that a synagogue can become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, which states that a synagogue cannot become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, as it is a dwelling. With regard to a synagogue in which there is no residence, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. Rabbi Meir deems a synagogue like a residence with regard to both a mezuza and its susceptibility to leprosy.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛

And if you wish, say instead a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot with regard to the synagogue. Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not difficult. This baraita, which states that it can become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is a place of residence; that baraita, which states that it cannot become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is not a place of residence.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛

And if you wish, say instead yet a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to synagogues in which there is not a place of residence,

Scroll To Top