Menachot 32a — the Talmud in English

And he leaves a space

in the margin

above, and a space below, and he makes its sections open.

I said to him: Rabbi, what is the reason

you make them open? Are they not closed in the Torah? For the space following the end of the section of “Hear” is closed!?

He said to me

Rabbi Meir:

Since the

two sections in the mezuzah

do not follow one another in the Torah.

The section of “Hear” is written in the portion of Va’etchanan, whereas the section of “And it will be, if you heed” is written in the portion of Ekev. Therefore, I make them open, to show that one is not a continuation of the other, as is the rule for an open section: its sign is that it was not written as a continuation of the preceding section. 87.

And Rav Ḥananel said that

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar!

And we raise the following question:

Is it not referring to the open sections

when Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, thereby presenting a difficulty against Rav Huna, who made its sections closed!?

And we answer: Rav’s statement that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

was not

said with regard to open sections, but rather

with regard to the space

above and below; that is what he was discussing.

And how much

is the measure of

the space

that must be left in a mezuzah above and below?

Rav Menshaya bar Yaakov said, and some say that Rav Shmuel bar Yaakov said: The space of the width of a scribes’ clamp!

The size of the split piece of wood used by scribes to hold the pages of a booklet so that they do not fold while he is writing; it is the width of half a fingernail [Rosh] 88.

Причина, по которой потребовали промежуток размером с зажим писцов, состоит в том, что, когда он пишет, он удерживает пергамент посредством зажима писцов и должен иметь возможность начать писать под ним Нимукей Йосеф].

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you not also hold

that is, do you not think,

that when Rav said

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

he was speaking about the space

above and below?

But Rav maintains

that the halakhic ruling is determined according to

custom, and nowadays

that is, at present,

the world is accustomed

to write the sections of a mezuzah

as closed sections!

And from where do we know that Rav rules according to custom?

For Rabbah said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah comes

and says: One removes the shoe

from the yevama

with a shoe

made of thin leather,

we would listen to him!

Even though there is reason to decree that one should not perform ḥalitza with such a shoe, lest people come to perform ḥalitza with a worn-out shoe that does not cover the foot,

if Elijah says: One does not perform ḥalitza with a sandal

made of hard leather,

we would not listen to him!

And the reason is:

the people have already become accustomed

to performing ḥalitza

with a sandal!

And Rav Yosef said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said:

If Elijah comes and says: One does not perform ḥalitza with a shoe, we would listen to him!

But if he says:

One does not perform ḥalitza with a sandal, we would not listen to him!

Because

the people have already become accustomed

to performing ḥalitza

with a sandal.

And we say: What difference is there between them

between the two versions? According to both, if he says not to perform ḥalitza with a sandal, we do not listen to him, whereas regarding a shoe, whatever he says, we listen to him.

And we answer: Whether one may now perform ḥalitza

with a shoe from the outset is the difference between them!

The first authority, who says that if Elijah comes and says that one performs ḥalitza with a shoe, we listen to him, holds that nowadays one does not perform ḥalitza with a shoe from the outset; rather, one should perform it with a sandal, until Elijah comes and teaches that one performs it with a shoe. The second authority holds that the halakha is that one performs ḥalitza with a shoe from the outset, until Elijah comes and says that one does not perform it with a shoe. In any event, we learn from here that Rav rules according to custom. If so, with regard to writing a mezuzah as well, he certainly holds that we rule according to custom, and we write it with closed sections.

Rather, is it not so? Learn from this

that when he said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, he was not referring to making them open, which opposes the custom, but only

to the space

above and below.

Learn from this!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is a mitzva to make them

the sections of the mezuzah

closed.

Nevertheless,

if one made them open, it is perfectly valid!

And what does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar mean by “open sections”

which seemingly indicates that one should make them open from the outset? He does not mean this; rather, he means that one may write the mezuzah

even

with

open

sections, and all the more so with closed sections!

Come and hear a proof

for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who said that it is a mitzva to make the mezuzah with closed sections.

As we learned in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: The tefillin of the arm may be made into the tefillin of the head, but the tefillin of the head may not be made into the tefillin of the arm.

And similarly,

a Torah scroll that has become worn, or tefillin that have become worn, may not be made into a mezuzah, because one may not lower an object from a higher level of sanctity

of a Torah scroll, and of tefillin, which contain four sections,

to a lower level of sanctity

of a mezuzah, which contains only two sections. And it follows:

In this case,

if the law were that one

may lower

an object from a higher level of sanctity to a lower level of sanctity, they would

make

a mezuzah from a worn Torah scroll or tefillin. 89.

But why?

How could one make a mezuzah from them?

Here,

in a Torah scroll and in tefillin, the sections

are closed,

whereas

here,

in a mezuzah, the sections

are open

and, if one made them closed, the mezuzah would be invalid! Rather, learn from this that the sections of a mezuzah are also closed. Therefore, if it were permitted to lower an object from a higher level of sanctity to a lower one, it would be possible to make mezuzot from a Torah scroll and from tefillin.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

what we said—that they would make a mezuzah from tefillin—means, according to the beraita,

to complete it.

If one line of the mezuzah were missing, then, if it were permitted to lower an object from a higher level of sanctity, they would take one line from a Torah scroll, sew it into the mezuzah, and complete it. 91.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against the beraita:

In this case,

if the law were

that one may lower

an object from a higher level of sanctity,

they would make

a mezuzah from a worn Torah scroll or worn tefillin.

But it was taught in a beraita: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that tefillin

are written

on parchment

the outer layer of leather when the hide is split in two,

whereas a mezuzah is written on doksostos,

the inner layer of the split hide.

Parchment

is written on

on the flesh side,

that is, on the side closer to the flesh.

Doksostos

is written on

on the hair side,

that is, on the side closer to the hair.

If so, this is difficult: How could one make a mezuzah, which is written on doksostos, from tefillin, which are written on parchment!?

And we answer: The ruling that the mitzva of tefillin is to write them on parchment and the ruling that a mezuzah is to be written on doksostos applies

as the mitzva

from the outset; but if one changed the material, this does not invalidate it. Therefore, if one could lower an object from a higher level of sanctity, it would be possible to make a mezuzah from tefillin.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught in a beraita: If one changed

it is invalid!

The Gemara understood this to mean that whether with tefillin or with a mezuzah, if one changed the type of leather, it is invalid.

And we answer: What we learned, that it is invalid, concerns

tefillin;

the beraita is discussing a case where one wrote them on doksostos, and they are invalid. But a mezuzah written on parchment is valid. 92.

And we raise another difficulty:

But it was taught in a beraita: If one changed it,

whether in this case or in that case, it is invalid!

The Gemara understood “whether in this case or in that case” to mean that whether with tefillin or with a mezuzah, it is invalid.

And we answer:

Both cases

are discussing a change made

in tefillin,

but

in one case, he wrote them on parchment on the hair side

rather than on the flesh side, and they were rendered invalid because of the change in the parchment itself.