Menachot 34aמנחות ל״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 34a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
34aל״ד א

אדעתא דגינה הוא דעבידא

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.

אביי ורבא עבדי כרבה ורב יוסף ורב אשי עביד כרב ושמואל לחומרא והילכתא כרב ושמואל לחומרא

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.

איתמר לול פתוח מן הבית לעלייה אמר רב הונא אם יש לו פתח אחד חייב במזוזה אחת אם יש לו ב' פתחין חייב בשתי מזוזות אמר רב פפא שמע מינה מדרב הונא האי אינדרונא דאית ליה ארבעה באבי חייב בארבע מזוזות פשיטא לא צריכא אף על גב דרגיל בחד

§ 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.

אמר אמימר האי פיתחא דאקרנא חייב במזוזה אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והא לית ליה פצימין א"ל עדי פצימי

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.

רב פפא איקלע לבי מר שמואל חזא ההוא פיתחא דלא הוה ליה אלא פצים אחד משמאלא ועבידא ליה מזוזה א"ל כמאן כר"מ אימר דאמר ר"מ מימין משמאל מי אמר

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?

מאי היא דתניא ביתך ביאתך מן הימין אתה אומר מן הימין או אינו אלא משמאל ת"ל ביתך מאי תלמודא אמר רבה דרך ביאתך מן הימין דכי עקר איניש כרעיה דימינא עקר

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.

רב שמואל בר אחא קמיה דרב פפא משמיה דרבא בר עולא אמר מהכא (מלכים ב יב, י) ויקח יהוידע הכהן ארון אחד ויקב חור בדלתו ויתן אותו אצל המזבח מימין בבוא איש בית ה' ונתנו שמה הכהנים שומרי הסף את כל הכסף המובא בית 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.

מאי ר"מ דתניא בית שאין לו אלא פצים אחד ר"מ מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין מאי טעמא דרבנן (דברים ו, ט) מזוזות כתיב

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.

מ"ט דר' מאיר דתניא מזוזות שומע אני מיעוט מזוזות שתים כשהוא אומר (דברים יא, כ) מזוזות בפרשה שניה שאין תלמוד לומר הוי ריבוי אחר ריבוי ואין ריבוי אחר ריבוי אלא למעט מעטו הכתוב למזוזה אחת דברי ר' ישמעאל

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.

ר"ע אומר אינו צריך כשהוא אומר (שמות יב, כג) על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות שאין ת"ל שתי מה ת"ל שתי זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר מזוזות אינו אלא אחת עד שיפרט לך הכתוב שתים

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.

ת"ר וכתבתם יכול יכתבנה על האבנים נאמר כאן כתיבה ונאמר להלן כתיבה מה להלן על הספר אף כאן על הספר

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.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמר כאן כתיבה ונאמר להלן כתיבה מה להלן על האבנים אף כאן על האבנים

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.

נראה למי דומה דנין כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות מכתיבה הנוהגת לדורות ואין דנין כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות מכתיבה שאינה נוהגת לדורות וכמו שנאמר להלן (ירמיהו לו, יח) ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את הדברים האלה ואני כותב על הספר בדיו

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).

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי רחמנא אמר על מזוזות ואת אמרת נילף כתיבה כתיבה אמר קרא (דברים ו, ט) וכתבתם כתיבה תמה והדר על המזוזות

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.

ומאחר דכתיב [וכתבתם] האי גזירה שוה למה לי אי לאו גזירה שוה הוה אמינא ליכתבא אאבנא וליקבעה אסיפא קמ"ל:

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.

ארבע פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבות זו את זו ואפילו כתב אחד מעכבן: פשיטא

§ 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?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא נצרכא אלא לקוצו של יו"ד והא נמי פשיטא לא נצרכא אלא לאידך דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל אות שאין גויל מוקף לה מארבע רוחותיה פסולה:

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.