מנחות לב

מנחות לב

וְעוֹשֶׂה רֶיוַח מִלְּמַעְלָה וְרֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה, וְעוֹשֶׂה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ פְּתוּחוֹת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רַבִּי, מָה טַעַם? אָמַר לִי: הוֹאִיל וְאֵין סְמוּכוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

And he would make a space above and a space below the text and would prepare the passages of the mezuza in the open manner, i.e., he would begin the second passage on the line following the end of the first passage. I said to him: My teacher, for what reason do you prepare the passages in the open manner, when in a Torah scroll those same passages are written in the closed manner? He said to me: Since the passages are not adjacent to one another in the Torah, as the first passage is Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and the second is Deuteronomy 11:13–21, I prepare them as open passages.

וְאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי לָאו אַפְּתוּחוֹת?

The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. What, is it not correct that Rav stated this with regard to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion that one prepares the passages in the open manner? This would present a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, Rav’s student, who wrote them in the closed manner.

לָא, אַרֶיוַח. וְכַמָּה רֶיוַח? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יַעֲקֹב: כִּמְלֵא אַטְבָּא דְּסִיפְרֵי.

The Gemara answers: No; he meant that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar with regard to the space that one must leave above and below the text. The Gemara asks: And how much space must one leave? Rav Menashya bar Ya’akov says, and some say it is Rav Shmuel bar Ya’akov who says: The space of a full scribe’s clip [atba], with which the sheets of parchment are held.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא דְּכִי אָמַר רַב אַרֶיוַח, וְהָא רַב אִית לֵיהּ מִנְהֲגָא, וְהָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא בִּסְתוּמוֹת!

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that when Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was referring to the space, not the manner of writing the passages? But Rav is of the opinion that an established custom must be observed, and nowadays the general custom is to write the passages of the mezuza in the closed manner.

דְּאָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר חוֹלְצִין בְּמִנְעָל – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּסַנְדָּל – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נָהֲגוּ הָעָם בְּסַנְדָּל.

The Gemara provides the source that according to Rav one must observe established customs. Ḥalitza is the ritual that frees the widow of a childless man from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her late husband’s brother. This ceremony involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. Rabba spoke of the importance of observing customs in that context, as Rabba says that Rav Kahana says that Rav says: If Elijah comes and says that one performs ḥalitza with a shoe, the Sages listen to him. But if he says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed to performing ḥalitza with a sandal.

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּמִנְעָל – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּסַנְדָּל – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נָהֲגוּ הָעָם בְּסַנְדָּל.

The Gemara presents another version of Rav’s statement: And Rav Yosef says that Rav Kahana says that Rav says: If Elijah comes and says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a shoe, the Sages listen to him; if he says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed to performing ḥalitza with a sandal.

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? מִנְעָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַרֶיוַח? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Abaye continues: And we say, when discussing these versions of his statement: What is the difference between these two versions of his statement? The difference is whether one may use a shoe ab initio. In any case, according to both statements Rav maintains that a custom must be observed, and the custom in this case is to write the passages in a closed manner. Rather, must one not conclude from it that when Rav says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was speaking of the space, not the manner of preparing the passages? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is correct.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹתָן סְתוּמוֹת, וְאִי עַבְדִינְהוּ פְּתוּחוֹת – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, וּמַאי פְּתוּחוֹת דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – אַף פְּתוּחוֹת.

§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is a mitzva ab initio to prepare the passages of a mezuza in the closed manner,but if one prepared them in the open manner, it is permitted to use the mezuza. And what is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saying when he says that Rabbi Meir would prepare the passages in the open manner? He means that one may prepare them even in the open manner.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבָּלָה וּתְפִילִּין שֶׁבָּלוּ – אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מְזוּזָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה. הָא מוֹרִידִין – עוֹשִׂין.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: Similarly, just as one may not convert phylacteries of the head into phylacteries of the arm, with regard to a Torah scroll that became worn and parchment of phylacteries that became worn, one may not fashion them into a mezuza by excising the relevant passages, despite the fact that the Torah passages of a mezuza appear in them. This is prohibited because one does not reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity, that of a Torah scroll or phylacteries, to a level of lesser sanctity, that of a mezuza. The Gemara infers from this baraita: If it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could fashion a mezuza from a Torah scroll.

אַמַּאי? הָכָא סְתוּמוֹת וְהָכָא פְּתוּחוֹת! דִּלְמָא לְהַשְׁלִים.

The Gemara explains the proof: But why is that the halakha, when here, in a Torah scroll, the passages are prepared in the closed manner, but there, in a mezuza, the passages are prepared in the open manner? Evidently, it is permitted to write a mezuza with the passages prepared in the closed manner. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps one should infer from the baraita that were it not for the fact that it is prohibited to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one would be allowed to complete a line or two of a mezuza by sewing to it those lines from a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries that became worn, but one may not fashion an entire mezuza from a sheet of a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries, as the passages in a Torah scroll and phylacteries are prepared in the closed manner.

הָא מוֹרִידִין עוֹשִׂין? וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי – תְּפִילִּין עַל הַקְּלָף, וּמְזוּזָה עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס; קְלָף בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר, דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר! לְמִצְוָה.

The Gemara asks another question: The baraita indicates that if it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could fashion a mezuza from phylacteries. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the passages of phylacteries are written on parchment, the outer layer of an animal’s hide, and the passages of a mezuza are written on dokhsostos, the inner layer, and when writing on parchment, one writes on the side of the hide that faced the flesh; when writing on dokhsostos, one writes on the side of the hide on which there was hair? How, then, can one use the other side of the hide for a mezuza? The Gemara answers that this requirement is of dokhsostos for a mezuza is stated as a mitzva, but it is not indispensable.

וְהָתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה פָּסוּל בִּתְפִילִּין! וְהָתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בְּזֶה פָּסוּל! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּתְפִילִּין, וְהָא דְּכַתְבִינְהוּ אַקְּלָף בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר, וְהָא

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one changed between parchment and dokhsostos, the item is unfit? The Gemara responds that this baraita is referring to phylacteries that one wrote on dokhsostos in the manner of a mezuza, not to a mezuza which one wrote on parchment. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one changed whether in this manner or in that manner, it is unfit? The Gemara explains that this baraita does not mean that one changed either in the case of phylacteries or a mezuza. Rather, both this manner and that manner are referring to phylacteries, and this case is where one wrote them on parchment but on the side of the hide on which there was hair, not on the side that faced the flesh, and that

דְּכַתְבִינְהוּ אַדּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר.

case is where one wrote them on dokhsostos on the side that faced the flesh. In both of these situations the phylacteries are unfit, but a mezuza that one wrote on parchment is fit.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שִׁינָּה בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה – פָּסוּל, רַבִּי [אַחָא מַכְשִׁיר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי] אַחַאי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

And if you wish, say instead that the ruling of the baraita that if one changed whether in this manner or in that manner it is unfit is in fact referring to a mezuza that one wrote on parchment, and this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If one changed in this manner or in that manner it is unfit. Rabbi Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, deems it fit; and some say he said this ruling in the name of Rabbi Akiva, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

הָא מוֹרִידִין עוֹשִׂין – וְהָא בָּעֲיָא שִׂרְטוּט, דְּאָמַר רַב מִנְיוֹמֵי בַּר חִלְקִיָּה, אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מְזוּזָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְשׂוּרְטֶטֶת פְּסוּלָה, וְרַב מִנְיָמִין בַּר חִלְקִיָּה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: שִׂרְטוּט שֶׁל מְזוּזָה הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

§ The baraita indicates that if it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could make a mezuza from phylacteries that became worn. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But a mezuza requires scoring, i.e., the parchment must have lines etched in it before writing, as Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: Any mezuza that is not scored is unfit, and Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya himself says concerning this: The scoring of a mezuza is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. With regard to phylacteries, by contrast, he does not teach that their parchment requires scoring.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת נִכְתָּבוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב, וְאֵין צְרִיכוֹת שִׂירְטוּט.

The Gemara answers that this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yirmeya says in the name of our teacher, Rav: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text, and their parchment does not require scoring.

וְהִילְכְתָא: תְּפִילִּין לָא בָּעֵי שִׂרְטוּט, וּמְזוּזָה בָּעֲיָא שִׂירְטוּט, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נִכְתָּבוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִיגְרָס גְּרִיסִין.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the parchment of phylacteries does not require scoring, but the parchment of a mezuza requires scoring. And unlike a Torah scroll, both these and those, phylacteries and mezuzot, may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text. What is the reason for this leniency? These short texts are well known to all scribes, and therefore it is permitted to write them by heart.

אָמַר רַב חֶלְבּוֹ: אֲנָא חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב אַפּוּרְיָא דְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עֲלֵיהּ, וְכַף לְכַדָּא אַאַרְעָא, וְאַנַּח עֲלֵיהּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, וַהֲדַר יְתֵיב בְּמִיטָּה. קָסָבַר: אָסוּר לֵישֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ.

In connection to Rav Ḥelbo relating the customs of Rav Huna, the Gemara cites that Rav Ḥelbo says: I myself saw Rav Huna as he wished to sit on his bed, which had a Torah scroll placed on it. And he overturned a jug on the ground and placed the Torah scroll on it, and only then sat on the bed. The reason he did so is that he holds that it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is placed.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּתָּר לֵישֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם לְחָשְׁךָ אָדָם לוֹמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל הַמִּיטָּה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ, וְנִשְׁמַט וְיָשַׁב עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ – הָתָם סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע הֲוָה.

The Gemara notes: And this halakha disagrees with a ruling of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is placed. And if a person whispers to you, saying: There was an incident involving Rabbi Elazar, who was sitting on a bed and realized that a Torah scroll was placed on it, and he immediately slipped off the bed and sat upon the ground, and in doing so he looked like one who had been bitten by a snake, i.e., he jumped up in a panic, that incident is no proof. There, the Torah scroll was placed on the ground. It is certainly disgraceful for one to sit on a bed while a Torah scroll is on the ground.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּתָבָהּ אִגֶּרֶת – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָתְיָא ״כְּתִיבָה״ ״כְּתִיבָה״ מִסֵּפֶר.

The Gemara returns to the discussion about the halakhot of writing a mezuza. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If one wrote a mezuza in the manner of a missive that one composes to a friend, i.e., without being exact about the lettering of each word, it is unfit. What is the reason? This is derived by a verbal analogy between “writing,” and “writing,” from a scroll, which must be written in precisely the correct manner.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּלָאָהּ בְּמַקֵּל – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ בָּעֵינַן. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: תְּלָאָהּ בְּמַקֵּל, אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ אַחַר הַדֶּלֶת – סַכָּנָה וְאֵין בָּהּ מִצְוָה.

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If one hung a mezuza on a stick in the entranceway, without affixing it to the doorpost, it is unfit. What is the reason? We require the fulfillment of the verse: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This ruling is also taught in a baraita: If one hung a mezuza on a stick, or placed it so that it was affixed behind the door within the house, he exposes himself to danger, and it does not enable him to fulfill the mitzva.

שֶׁל בֵּית מוֹנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּפוּנְדְּקוֹתֵיהֶן כֵּן, זֵכֶר לִמְזוּזָה.

The Gemara relates: The members of the household of King Munbaz would do so, i.e., hang mezuzot on sticks, in their inns, i.e., when they would sleep in an inn. They would not do this in order to fulfill the mitzva, as one who sleeps in an inn is exempt from placing a mezuza, but in remembrance of the mezuza. Since they would travel frequently, they wanted to remember the mitzva of mezuza, which they did not fulfill often.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ חֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל פֶּתַח. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רָבָא: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a mitzva to place the mezuza within the airspace of the entrance, not on the outside. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? After all, the Merciful One states: “And upon your gates,” which indicates that it must be within the area of the gate, rather than the outside. The Gemara explains that it might enter your mind to say that since Rava says: It is a mitzva to place the mezuza