Yoma 11

כל השערים שהיו שם לא היה להם מזוזה חוץ משער ניקנור שלפנים ממנו לשכת פרהדרין

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.

לימא רבנן היא ולא רבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה היא גופה גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה אפילו תימא רבי יהודה כולה חדא גזירה היא

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.

תנו רבנן בשעריך אחד שערי בתים ואחד שערי חצירות ואחד שערי מדינות ואחד שערי עיירות יש בהן חובת מצוה למקום משום שנאמר וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך

§ Apropos the mezuza in the High Priest’s chamber, the Gemara discusses other halakhot of mezuza. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates” (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: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates.”

אמר ליה אביי לרב ספרא הני אבולי דמחוזא מאי טעמא לא עבדו להו רבנן מזוזה אמר ליה הנהו חזוק לאקרא דכובי הוא דעבידי אמר ליה ואקרא דכובי גופה תבעי מזוזה דהא אית בה דירה לשומר בית האסורין דהא תניא בית הכנסת שיש בו בית דירה לחזן הכנסת חייבת במזוזה

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 Meḥoza, 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’t the fort of turrets itself require a mezuza, since there is a residence for the prison guard in the fort? As, wasn’t 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.

אלא אמר אביי משום סכנה דתניא מזוזת יחיד נבדקת פעמים בשבוע ושל רבים פעמים ביובל

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.

ואמר רבי יהודה מעשה בארטבין אחד שהיה בודק מזוזות בשוק העליון של צפורי ומצאו קסדור אחד ונטל ממנו אלף זוז והאמר רבי אלעזר שלוחי מצוה אין ניזוקין היכא דקביע היזקא שאני דכתיב ויאמר שמואל איך אלך ושמע שאול והרגני ויאמר ה׳ עגלת בקר תקח בידך ואמרת לזבוח לה׳ באתי

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’t 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’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And 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” (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.

תני רב כהנא קמיה דרב יהודה בית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות פטורים מן המזוזה מפני שהנשים נאותות בהן ומאי נאותות רוחצות אמר ליה רב יהודה טעמא דרוחצות הא סתמא חייבין והתניא רפת בקר פטורה מן המזוזה

§ 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’t it taught in a different baraita: A cattle barn is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, unrelated to whether or not women bathe there?

אלא מאי נאותות מתקשטות והכי קתני אף על פי שהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין אמר ליה רב כהנא ושהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין והתניא רפת בקר פטורה מן המזוזה ושהנשים מתקשטות בה חייבת במזוזה

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’t 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?

אלא מאי אית לך למימר מתקשטות תנאי היא לדידי נמי סתמא תנאי היא דתניא ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ולבית הבקר ולבית העצים ולבית האוצרות שפטורין מן המזוזה ויש מחייבין

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’im? 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’im, 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.

באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה ושהנשים נאותות בהן פטורים מן המזוזה רב כהנא מתרץ לטעמיה ורב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה

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.

רב כהנא מתרץ לטעמיה ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ולבית הבקר ולבית העצים ולבית האוצרות שפטורים מן המזוזה בסתם ויש שמחייבים בסתם באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה ושהנשים נאותות בהן ומאי נאותות רוחצות פטורין מן המזוזה

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.

אי הכי היינו מרחץ אשמעינן מרחץ דרבים ואשמעינן מרחץ דיחיד דסלקא דעתך אמינא מרחץ דרבים דנפיש זוהמיה אבל מרחץ דיחיד דלא נפיש זוהמיה אימא ליחייב במזוזה קא משמע לן

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.

ורב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה הכי קתני ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות שפטורין מן המזוזה אפילו מתקשטות ויש מחייבין במתקשטות אבל סתם דברי הכל פטור באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה אף על פי שהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין מן המזוזה משום דנפיש זוהמיה

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.

ולרב יהודה סתמא דברי הכל פטור והתניא בשעריך אחד שערי בתים ואחד שערי חצירות ואחד שערי מדינות ואחד שערי עיירות ורפת ולולין ומתבן ואוצרות יין ואוצרות שמן חייבין במזוזה יכול שאני מרבה אף

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’t 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

בית שער אכסדרה ומרפסת תלמוד לומר בית מה בית מיוחד לדירה יצאו אלו שאין מיוחדין לדירה

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.

יכול שאני מרבה אף בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה תלמוד לומר בית מה בית העשוי לכבוד אף כל העשוי לכבוד יצאו אלו שאין עשויין לכבוד

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.

יכול שאני מרבה אף הר הבית והלשכות והעזרות תלמוד לומר בית מה בית שהוא חול אף כל שהוא חול יצאו אלו שהן קודש תיובתא

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.

תני רב שמואל בר יהודה קמיה דרבא ששה שערים פטורין מן המזוזה בית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות ושער המדי ושער שאינו מקורה ושער שאינו גבוה עשרה אמר ליה פתחת בששה וסלקת בשבעה

§ 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.

אמר ליה שער המדי תנאי היא דתניא כיפה רבי מאיר מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרים ושוין שאם יש ברגלה עשרה שחייבת במזוזה אמר אביי דכולי עלמא גבוהה עשרה ואין ברגלה שלשה ולאו כלום היא אי נמי יש ברגלה שלשה ואינה גבוהה עשרה ולאו כלום היא

Rava said to him: The obligation to affix a mezuza to a Median gate is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, 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.

לא נחלקו אלא בגבוהה עשרה ויש ברגלה שלשה ואין ברחבה ארבעה ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה רבי מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים

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.

תנו רבנן בית הכנסת ובית האשה ובית השותפין חייבת במזוזה פשיטא מהו דתימא ביתך ולא ביתה ביתך ולא בתיהם קמשמע לן

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: A synagogue, a woman’s 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: “Your house,” in the masculine, and not her house; “Your house,” 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.

ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם הני בעו חיי והני לא בעו חיי

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s 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: “So that your days be numerous, as well as the days of your sons” (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.

אלא ביתך למה לי כדרבא דאמר רבא דרך ביאתך וכי עקר איניש כרעיה דימינא עקר ברישא

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.

תניא אידך בית הכנסת ובית השותפין ובית האשה מטמאין בנגעים פשיטא מהו דתימא ובא אשר לו הבית לו ולא לה לו ולא להן קא משמע לן

§ 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’s house become impure with the impurity of leprosy of the house, like all other houses. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why wouldn’t they become impure? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it is written with regard to leprosy: “And the one whom the house is his will come” (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.

ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא בבית ארץ אחוזתכם אלא לו למה לי מי שמייחד ביתו לו שאינו רוצה להשאיל כליו ואומר שאין לו הקדוש ברוך הוא מפרסמו כשמפנה את ביתו פרט למשאיל כליו לאחרים

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (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.

ובית הכנסת מי מטמא בנגעים והתניא יכול יהיו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים תלמוד לומר ובא אשר לו הבית מי שמיוחד לו יצאו אלו שאין מיוחדין לו

The Gemara raises another question: And with regard to a synagogue, does it become impure with the impurity of leprosy? But wasn’t 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.

לא קשיא הא רבי מאיר הא רבנן דתניא בית הכנסת שיש בה בית דירה לחזן הכנסת חייב במזוזה ושאין בה בית דירה רבי מאיר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

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.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא רבנן ולא קשיא הא דאית בה בית דירה הא דלית בה בית דירה

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.

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דלית בה בית דירה

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,