Menachot 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

And what is the meaning of “the beginning of the upper third,” which Shmuel states in saying that one must distance it?

That is,

not

to distance

the place where the mezuzah is affixed

more than one-third from the upper lintel.

That is, the lowest place for affixing the mezuzah is at the beginning of the upper third, and one may not affix it below that. But above the upper third, one may affix the mezuzah.

Rava said: It is a mitzva to place it

the mezuzah

in the handbreadth nearest the public domain.

For example, when the thickness of the doorway’s opening is four or five handbreadths, one should place it in the handbreadth nearest the public domain.

What is the reason?

The Sages say:

Therefore, its mitzva is to place it in the handbreadth nearest the entrance

so that he will encounter the mitzva immediately

when he enters the doorway.

Rav Ḥanina of Sura says:

That is,

so that it will protect it

so that the mezuzah will protect the entire house from harmful forces. Therefore, it is preferable to affix it in the handbreadth nearest the outside, so that this area too will be protected from harmful forces.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Come and see how unlike the attribute

the manner

of the Holy One, blessed be He, is the attribute

the manner

of flesh and blood. With flesh and blood, the king sits inside and his servants guard him

to protect him

from outside.

But

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

rather,

His servants

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

and He

the Holy One, blessed be He,

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

beside the mezuzah, which is on the right side of the person entering.

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, expounded in the name of Rava: If one deepened

the recess in which the mezuzah is affixed

a handbreadth

and affixed the mezuzah there,

it is invalid.

Shall we say that this supports Rava?

The following beraita: If one

placed it

the mezuzah

in the recess

in the depth of the doorpost

or covered it

by adding to the threshold

a casing

a brick—that is, after affixing 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—then

if there is there,

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

a handbreadth,

meaning that the mezuzah is now affixed a handbreadth within the wall,

he must

affix

another mezuzah

in the proper place.

And if not,

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

he need not affix another mezuzah.

It is evident that if one deepened the mezuzah by a handbreadth, its affixing is invalid, in accordance with Rava. And we reject this:

When that

which states that if it contains a handbreadth it is invalid

was taught, it was with regard to a doorway behind a door,

for example, in the house of wealthy people, who would customarily make a large gate that they did not open frequently, and beside it a small doorway that was always open. The case is one in which both doorways open in the same direction. At the beginning of their construction there was no doorpost separating the two doorways; rather, there was one wide doorway, and afterward they installed a doorpost to separate the two doorways. If there is a handbreadth between one doorway and the other—that is, if the thickness of the doorpost is a handbreadth—they are considered two separate doorways, and each doorway requires its own mezuzah. If there is no handbreadth between them, one mezuzah suffices for both doorways, because the two doorways are considered one doorway. [

Some explain that the case concerns a doorpost standing at a corner and serving as a post for two doorways opening in two directions. If the post is a handbreadth thick, each doorway requires a mezuzah, but if it is not a handbreadth thick, one mezuzah suffices for both doorways. The commentators elaborated on this explanation.]

And we challenge this: How can the statement in the beraita, “in the recess, or if he covered it with a casing,” be established as referring to a doorway behind a door?

It is explicitly taught in the beraita: “A

doorway

behind a door: If there is a handbreadth there, he requires another mezuzah. If not, he does not require another mezuzah.”

This implies that the first clause does not refer to this case.

And we answer: The beraita

teaches, “How?”

That is, the latter clause explains the first clause. And this is its meaning: “If one placed it in the recess or covered it with a casing, if there is a handbreadth there, he requires another mezuzah, and so on. How so? For example, a doorway behind a door.”

A tanna taught:

If one did not find wood with which to make the doorway frame from wooden doorposts, and made the doorway frame by

setting up for it a frame of

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

he cuts a tube

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

he places

the mezuzah.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: They taught

that the mezuzah is valid in this manner

only if he first set up

the reeds as a doorway frame,

and ultimately 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 ultimately

set up

the reed frame as a doorway frame,

it is invalid,

the affixing of the mezuzah, because of the principle:

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

Affixing the mezuzah to the reed when it was detached and exempt from mezuzah does not suffice, for as long as it had not been installed as a doorway frame, there was no obligation of mezuzah.

And Rava said: These defective doorways

doorways that are damaged and require repair

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

in explaining these doorways,

Rav Reḥumi and Abba Yosei. One said: They have no ceiling,

a lintel —that is, the doorway has only two doorposts but no lintel, or the lintel consists of alternating stones, one projecting inward and the next projecting outward [and a doorway requires two doorposts and a lintel in order to be obligated in mezuzah].

And one said: They have no doorposts,

the doorposts are not straight, but contain alternating stones, one projecting inward and the next projecting outward (Rashi in Eruvin

).

Rabba bar Sheila said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: An exedra

a courtyard with only three walls, whose fourth side is entirely open, with only a strip of the wall above, near the ceiling, to support the ceiling

is exempt from mezuzah, because it does not have

at its entrance

doorposts.

A completely open entrance, without doorposts closing off part of the opening, is not considered a doorway that creates an obligation of mezuzah.

And we inquire about this: It follows

that if it has

the exedra

doorposts, it is obligated

in mezuzah! But these doorposts

were made for strengthening the ceiling

and not for the purpose of forming a doorway; if so, they should not be considered doorposts that obligate the entrance in mezuzah?!

And we answer:

This is what

Rav Ḥisda

said: Even though it has doorposts, an exedra is exempt

from mezuzah, because

the doorposts were made

the doorposts

only to strengthen the ceiling.

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

I saw the exedrae of Rav’s house,

that had doorposts

[doorposts]

but had no mezuzah.

He held

that Rav considered the doorposts

to have been made for strengthening the ceiling,

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

We raise an objection: 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. This is difficult for Abaye, who exempted an exedra from mezuzah.

And we answer: The exedra that the beraita says is 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 its walls do not reach the roofing].

And we challenge this:

An exedra of Rav’s house is like an ordinary room

[like a room]

of the finest kind

[ordinary]

it is,

as its walls are ten handbreadths high. What, then, is the novelty in stating that it is obligated in mezuzah? Its obligation is by Torah law?!

And we answer: The case in which the beraita states that it is obligated refers

to a Roman exedra,

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

Reḥava 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 the name of Rav: A gatehouse

a small house

that opens

through one doorway

to a courtyard,

and through which one enters from the courtyard, and

houses open into the gatehouse

through a second doorway, and from the gatehouse one enters the houses. Since the gatehouse serves both the houses and the courtyard, therefore its two doorways are obligated in mezuzah.

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

(A small room. That is, the gatehouse was in the middle, with one entrance opening to the room and one entrance opening to the garden),

Rabbi Yosei says:

the gatehouse

is considered like the small room

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

And the Sages say

that the gatehouse

is considered like the airspace 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 is, the entrance from the garden into the gatehouse, and when the door is opened, the hinge is on the side of the house,

everyone agrees that it is obligated

in mezuzah.

What is the reason?

Since the hinge is toward the house, this entrance is therefore

like an entrance to a house.

When Rabbi Yosei and the Sages disagree

is

from the house to the garden

when the hinge is toward the garden:

one master

Rabbi Yosei

holds that the small room is primary

and the gatehouse is obligated in mezuzah, even though the hinge is toward the garden, since the gatehouse was made primarily for the small room, and therefore it is all considered an entrance to the house [and what we said above—that the hinge determines the matter—applies specifically to an entrance between two houses, since both are equal in importance; here, however, the small room is certainly more important than the garden].

And the other master

the Sages

hold that the garden is primary

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

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said:

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

From the house to the garden

when the hinge is toward the garden,

everyone

both Rabbi Yosei and the Sages

agrees that it is exempt

the gatehouse from mezuzah.

What is the reason?

Because the gatehouse

is an entrance to the garden

since the hinge is on the garden’s side.

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

when the hinge is toward the house.

One master

Rabbi Yosei

holds

that the gatehouse

is an entrance to the house

since the hinge is toward the house.