Menachot 33b — the Talmud in English

And what is “the beginning of the upper third” concerning which Shmuel says to distance it?

That is

not

to distance

the place of fixing the mezuzah

from the lintel above by more than a third.

That is, the lowest place for fixing the mezuzah is at the beginning of the upper third, and below that he may not fix it. But above the upper third he may fix the mezuzah.

Rava said: It is a mitzva to place it

the mezuzah

in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain.

And this is, for example, when the thickness of the doorway’s opening was four or five handbreadths, so that he should place it in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain.

What is the reason?

The Sages say:

therefore its mitzva is in the handbreadth adjacent to the doorway

so that he encounters the mitzva immediately

when he enters the doorway.

Rabbi Hanina of Sura says:

because

so that it will guard it

so that the mezuzah will guard the entire house from harmful beings; therefore it is preferable to fix it in the handbreadth adjacent to the outside, so that this place too will be guarded from harmful beings.

Rabbi Hanina said: Come and see, unlike the manner of

the manner of

the Holy One, blessed is He, the manner of

the way of

flesh and blood. The manner of flesh and blood is that the king sits inside and his servants guard him

to protect him

from outside.

But

the Holy One, blessed is He, is not so,

rather,

His servants

the Children of Israel who fulfill the mitzva of mezuzah sit inside,

while He,

the Holy One, blessed is He,

guards them from outside, as it is stated: “The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your shade at your right hand,”

beside the mezuzah, which is on the right side of his entrance.

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, expounded in Rava’s name: If he deepened

the hole in which the mezuzah is fixed

a handbreadth ,

and fixed the mezuzah there,

it is invalid.

Shall we say that this supports him

for Rava:

if he placed

the mezuzah

in a doorpost

in the depth of the doorway’s post

or if he overlaid it

having added to the threshold

a frame

a brick, that is, after he fixed the mezuzah in the doorway, he added a patch to the thickness of the doorway, so that the mezuzah is now not on the threshold of the doorway but within the depth of the threshold of the doorway, then

if there is there,

in the depth of the doorpost where he fixed the mezuzah, or in that patch that he added to the threshold,

a handbreadth,

for the mezuzah is now fixed a handbreadth within the wall,

he must

fix

another mezuzah

in the proper place.

And if not,

that there is not a handbreadth in the depth of the doorpost or in the thickness of the patch,

he does not need to fix another mezuzah.

And it is evident that if he deepened the mezuzah a handbreadth, the fixing of the mezuzah is invalid, as Rava said. And we reject this:

when that was taught

that if there is a handbreadth in it, it is invalid,

it refers to a doorway behind the door

for example, in the house of wealthy people, whose practice was to make a large gate which they did not open frequently, and beside it there was a small doorway which was always open; and the case is where both doorways open in the same direction. At the beginning of their construction there was no doorpost separating the two doorways, but there was one wide doorway, and afterward they fixed a doorpost to separate the two doorways. And if there is a handbreadth between one doorway and the other—that is, the thickness of the doorpost is a handbreadth—they are considered two distinct doorways, and a mezuzah is required for each doorway separately. And if there is not a handbreadth between them, one mezuzah suffices for the two doorways, because the two doorways are considered one doorway.

And some explain that the case concerns a doorpost standing at a corner and serving as a post for two doorways opening on two sides; and if the thickness of the post is a handbreadth, a mezuzah is required for each doorway, and if it does not contain a handbreadth, one mezuzah suffices for the two doorways. The commentators elaborated in explaining this interpretation.

And we object: How can what is stated in the beraita, “in a doorpost, or if he overlaid it with a frame,” be established as referring to a doorway behind the door,

when it is explicitly taught in the beraita “

a doorway

behind the door: if there is there a handbreadth, another mezuzah is required; if not, another mezuzah is not required.”

And it implies that the first clause is not speaking of this case.

And we answer: The beraita

teaches, “How so?”

That is, the latter clause explains the first clause. And this is the explanation: If he placed it in a doorpost, or overlaid it with a frame, if there is there a handbreadth, another mezuzah is required, etc.; how so? For example, a doorway behind the door.

It was taught:

if he did not find wood with which to make the form of the doorway from wooden doorposts, and made the form of the doorway by

setting up for it a frame of

reeds—that is, he made the form of the doorway from a frame of reeds—,

he cuts a tube

he cuts a piece from one of the hollow reeds used for the form of the doorway, and in that hollow

he places

the mezuzah.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said: They taught

that the mezuzah is valid in this manner

only when he first set up

the reeds as the form of the doorway,

and afterward cut

one of the reeds,

and placed

the mezuzah there.

But if he cut

the reed first

and placed

the mezuzah in the place of the cut, and afterward

set up

the frame of reeds as the form of the doorway,

the fixing of the mezuzah is invalid

because of

“You shall make it, and not [that which is] already made.”

For fixing the mezuzah on the reed when it was detached and exempt from mezuzah does not help, since as long as it had not been fixed as the form of a doorway, there was no obligation of mezuzah.

And Rava said: These defective doorways

defective doorways, which lack repair

are exempt from mezuzah. What are defective doorways? They disagree about this

in explaining these doorways,

Rav Rehumai and Abba Yosei. One said: They have no lintel,

a lintel , that the doorway has only two doorposts but no lintel, or that in the lintel one stone protrudes inward and another protrudes outward [and a doorway must have two doorposts and a lintel in order to become obligated in mezuzah].

And one said: They have no doorposts

doorposts, for the doorposts

are not straight, but one stone projects inward and another projects outward (Rashi in Eruvin).

Rabba bar Shila said in the name of Rav Hisda: An exedra

a courtyard having only three walls, while the fourth wall is entirely open, and only above, near the ceiling, there is a strip of the wall to support the ceiling

is exempt from mezuzah, because it does not have

at its entrance

doorposts

posts. And such an entrance, which is entirely open, without doorposts closing part of the entrance, is not considered an entrance to become obligated in mezuzah.

And we inquire concerning this: It implies,

if it has

the exedra

doorposts, it is obligated

in mezuzah!? Yet these doorposts

are made for strengthening the ceiling

and not for the purpose of an entrance, and if so they are not considered doorposts that obligate the entrance in mezuzah!?

And we answer:

This is what

Rav Hisda

says: An exedra, even though it has doorposts, is exempt

from mezuzah, because

they are made

the doorposts

only for strengthening the ceiling.

Abaye said: I have seen the exedrae of my master’s house,

I saw the exedrae of Rav’s house,

that they have doorposts

doorposts,

but they do not have mezuzot.

He holds

that Rav [holds that] the doorposts

are made for strengthening the ceiling,

and therefore they are not considered doorposts that obligate the entrance in mezuzah.

An objection was raised: A gatehouse

a small house in which the watchman sits beside the courtyard gate, and likewise

an exedra and a balcony are obligated in mezuzah

by rabbinic ordinance. And this is difficult for Abaye, who exempted an exedra from mezuzah.

And we answer: That exedra which is taught as obligated refers

to an exedra of Rav’s house

which has four walls, except that they do not reach the roofing [and therefore this place is called an exedra, since the walls do not reach the roofing].

And we object:

An exedra of Rav’s house is like a proper room

like a room

excellent

ordinary

it is,

for its walls are ten handbreadths high. And what is the novelty that it is obligated in mezuzah? Its obligation is by Torah law!?

And we answer: This that is written in the beraita, that it is obligated, refers

to a Roman exedra

which is surrounded by windows reaching to the partitions. The novelty is that even though the partitions do not reach the ceiling, it is obligated in mezuzah.

Rehava said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: A house of Harziki is obligated in two mezuzot.

What is a house of Harziki?

Rav Pappa the elder said in Rav’s name: A gatehouse

a small house

that is open

by one entrance

to a courtyard,

and through it one enters from the courtyard. And

houses are open to the gatehouse

to a second gate, and from the gatehouse one enters the houses. And since the gatehouse serves both the houses and the courtyard, therefore its two entrances are obligated in mezuzah.

The Sages taught: A gatehouse open to a garden and to a small room [

small room. That is, the gatehouse was in the middle, and it had one entrance to the room and one entrance to the garden],

Rabbi Yosei says:

the gatehouse

is judged as a small room

and as a place separate from the garden, and the gatehouse is judged as serving the small room and is obligated in mezuzah.

And the Sages say

that the gatehouse

is judged as air

of the garden and as an inseparable part of it, and it is not obligated in mezuzah.

And we explain:

Rav and Shmuel both say: From the garden to the house,

that entrance which is from the garden to the gatehouse; and when he opens the door, the hinge-side indicator is found toward the house,

everyone agrees that it is obligated

in mezuzah.

What is the reason?

For since the hinge-side indicator is toward the house, if so, this entrance

is like the entrance of a house.

When they disagree

Rabbi Yosei and the Sages,

from the house to the garden

when the hinge-side indicator is toward the garden,

one

Rabbi Yosei

holds that the small room is primary

and the gatehouse is obligated in mezuzah, even though the hinge-side indicator is toward the garden, since the main purpose of the gatehouse was made for the small room, and if so, all of it is considered an entrance of the house [and what we said above, that the hinge-side indicator determines, applies specifically to an entrance between two houses, for both are equal in importance; but here, certainly the small room is more important than the garden].

And one

the Sages

hold that the garden is primary

and the gatehouse is exempt from mezuzah, since the hinge-side indicator is toward the garden, and therefore the entrance of the gatehouse is considered an entrance of the garden, which is a place exempt from mezuzah.

Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say:

They explained the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Sages in the opposite manner:

From the house to the garden

when the hinge-side indicator is toward the garden,

everyone

both Rabbi Yosei and the Sages

does not disagree that it is exempt

the gatehouse from mezuzah.

What is the reason?

Because the gatehouse

is the entrance of the garden

for the hinge-side indicator is on the garden’s side.

When Rabbi Yosei and the Sages disagree is, from the garden to the house

when the hinge-side indicator is toward the house.

One

Rabbi Yosei

holds

that the gatehouse

is an entrance of the house

for, after all, the hinge-side indicator is toward the house.