Menachot 34a — the Talmud in English

But

the Sages

hold that the entire

gatehouse,

was made with the garden in mind,

it was made primarily for the garden, and therefore, even though the hinge-sign is toward the house, nevertheless it is considered an entrance of the garden and is exempt from mezuzah [Rashi brought another explanation concerning this matter].

Abaye and Rava acted

in this matter

in accordance with

the words of

Rabba and Rav Yosef,

that when the hinge-sign is toward the garden, everyone holds that the gatehouse is exempt from mezuzah, and they disagree only when the hinge-sign is toward the house.

And Rav Ashi acted

in this matter

in accordance with

the words of

Rav and Shmuel stringently.

And the halakha is

in accordance with Rav and Shmuel stringently.

And in all circumstances, even if the hinge-sign is toward the garden, the gatehouse is obligated in mezuzah, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei.

It was stated: A shaft open from the house to the upper story

a hollow in the floor of the upper story through which they ascended by stairs from the house to the upper story and descended from the upper story to the house. Around the stairs they would make four partitions so that the members of the household could not enter the upper story, nor those of the upper story enter the house, without permission. Sometimes the partitions surrounded the stairs both in the upper story and in the house, and sometimes only in the upper story or only in the house. And there was an entrance in the partition.

Rav Huna said: If it has

that shaft

one entrance

either in the upper story or in the house,

it is obligated in one mezuzah. And if it has two entrances, it is obligated in two mezuzot

[and below we explain what Rav Huna innovated].

Rav Pappa said: Infer from Rav Huna: This indarona

[room]

which has four entrances

[doorways]

is obligated in four mezuzot.

And we raised an objection: It is obvious!

Since the room has four entrances, it is certainly obligated in four mezuzot.

And we answer:

It is necessary

even though he is accustomed to use

one

of the entrances more than the other entrances, nevertheless all the entrances are obligated in mezuzah [and what we said above, that “with regard to mezuzah, one follows the accustomed path,” refers to a case in which there are only two entrances. Then one follows the accustomed entrance, and only it is obligated in mezuzah. But when there are three or more entrances, one does not follow the accustomed entrance, for one entrance does not exempt the other entrances. And some explain that only an entrance used by one person, while the other people enter through another entrance, is exempt; but entrances used for everyone’s entry, when one entrance is used more than the other entrances, are all obligated in mezuzah].

And this is what Rav Pappa innovated: although the regular use was only of one entrance, nevertheless all the entrances are obligated in mezuzah.

Ameimar said: This entrance at the corner

an entrance situated at the corner of the house [some explain that the fourth side is entirely open, and some explain (the Hazon Ish) that the entrance is made from an opening in the two adjoining walls],

is obligated in mezuzah.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it has no

for this entrance

doorposts?!

He said to him: These

behold, these ends of the walls serve as

doorposts

of the entrance.

Rav Pappa happened to come

[to the house]

of Mar Shmuel and saw that entrance

[he saw one of the entrances]

which had only one doorpost on the left

[on the left side of the entrance].

And it had been made for it

and it had been made for that entrance

a mezuzah.

He said to him

Rav Pappa said to Shmuel:

According to whom

do you hold that you affixed a mezuzah? Is it

according to Rabbi Meir,

who obligates one in mezuzah even though there is only one doorpost?

I can say that Rabbi Meir said

when the doorpost is

on the right,

but when the doorpost is

on the left, who said

that Rabbi Meir obligates one in mezuzah? Surely one must affix the mezuzah on the right!

What is it

from where is this law derived, that the mezuzah must be on the right side?

As it was taught:

It is written, “And you shall write them on the doorposts of

your house,”

and they expound:

“Your entering is from the right.”

That is, on the right of his entering the house.

You say

that your entering is

from the right, or perhaps it is only from the

side

of the left?

The verse says: “Your house.”

What is the proof

how do you derive from “your house” that it must be on the right side?

Rabba said: The manner of your entering

[for “your house” is expounded as an expression of entering]: As the manner of your coming into the house, so shall you affix the mezuzah, and not according to the manner of your exiting the house. And this

is from the right, for when a person lifts his foot

[when a person lifts his foot to walk],

he lifts his right foot first

[at the beginning]. And from this they learn that the mezuzah is to be affixed on the right of the entrance into the house.

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa before

[before]

Rav Pappa, in the name of Rava bar Ulla, said: From here

we learn that the mezuzah is affixed on the right side. And it is written in the Book of Kings:

“And Jehoiada the priest took one chest and bored a hole in its door, and placed it beside the altar on the right when a person enters the House of the Lord; and the priests, the guardians of the threshold, placed there all the money brought into the House of the Lord.”

And when a person entered the Temple courtyard from the east and went toward the west, that chest, which stood on the northern side of the east, was on the right side of the one entering. From this we see that a person’s entering toward the altar was on the right side, and therefore they placed the chest there. From this we learn that a person’s manner of entering is always toward the right. The same applies to mezuzah: since “the manner of entering” is written, it must be affixed on the right side.

And we explain:

Where

did we learn the words of

Rabbi Meir,

that one doorpost is sufficient for the obligation of mezuzah?

As it was taught: A house that has only one doorpost—Rabbi Meir obligates it in mezuzah.

And the Sages exempt it,

since it does not have two doorposts.

What is the reason of the Rabbis,

who required two doorposts? “

Doorposts is written,”

and the minimum of “doorposts” is two.

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

that one doorpost is sufficient?

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage of Shema: “And you shall write them on

the doorposts

of your house.”

I might understand

from the meaning of the verse, which writes “doorposts” and not “doorpost,”

the minimum of “doorposts”

that is, the smallest number that can be understood by the word “doorposts,” namely

two. When it says

“And you shall write them on

the doorposts

of your house”

in the second passage,

“And it will be, if you obey,”

which need not be stated,

for apparently this word is superfluous, since “doorposts” has already been written in the first passage [the passage of Shema], therefore

it is

the word “doorposts” mentioned in both passages

a multiplication after a multiplication,

and it is an established principle for us that

a multiplication after a multiplication serves only to diminish. The verse diminished it to one doorpost,

to say that even if the entrance has only one doorpost, it is obligated in mezuzah,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to derive this from a multiplication after a multiplication, for one mezuzah is sufficient.

When it says

in the passage concerning the Paschal offering, “And he shall see the blood

on the lintel and on the two doorposts,” which need not say “two”

doorposts, for the meaning of the word “doorposts” is at least two doorposts, and if so, the word “two” is superfluous.

If so,

what does “two” teach? This establishes a principle: Wherever “doorposts” is stated, it means only one, until the verse specifies two for you,

as it specified in the passage concerning the Paschal offering. Therefore, with regard to mezuzah, where “doorposts” is written without specification, we interpret the intention of the verse as one doorpost. This is the view of Rabbi Meir, that one doorpost is sufficient for the obligation of mezuzah.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of mezuzah: “

And you shall write

them on the doorposts.”

Could he write it

[the mezuzah]

on the stones

of the doorposts, as it is written, “And you shall write them on the doorposts,” implying on the doorposts themselves?!

It is stated here

in regard to mezuzah,

“writing,” and it is stated there

in the passage concerning a bill of divorce,

“writing”: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance.”

“And he shall write for her a scroll of severance,”

just as there,

in a bill of divorce, the writing is

on a scroll ,

so here too,

in mezuzah, the writing is

on a scroll.

Or perhaps follow this path? Perhaps we should derive the gezerah shavah in another manner:

It is stated here

in regard to mezuzah,

“writing,” and it is stated there

when they were commanded to write the Torah on the stones after crossing the Jordan,

“writing”: “And you shall write upon them all the words of the Torah.”

Just as there,

when they crossed the Jordan, they wrote

on the stones, so here too,

in regard to mezuzah,

on the stones?!

in the case of a mezuzah,

on the stones?!

Consider to what it resembles

the mezuzah:

We derive

the writing of the mezuzah, which is

writing that applies for generations, from writing

of a bill of divorce, which is writing

that applies for generations. But we do not derive writing that applies for generations,

the mezuzah,

from

the writing of the Torah on the stones, which is

writing that does not apply for generations,

but was only a temporary instruction.

Likewise, one must write with ink both in mezuzot and in a bill of divorce ,

and as it is stated there

in the Book of Jeremiah concerning the writing of the passage of Lamentations by Baruch son of Neriah: “

And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me from his mouth, and I wrote them in the scroll with ink.”

And from this they learn that wherever writing in a scroll is required, one must write with ink.

Rav Aḥa son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: The Merciful One said, “

And you shall write them on

doorposts”

and this implies that writing is required on the threshold itself and not on parchment;

yet you say that we should derive

that the mezuzah is written on parchment through the gezerah shavah of

“writing” from “writing”

from a bill of divorce?! How can the plain meaning of the verse—that writing is required on the threshold—be uprooted by deriving a gezerah shavah?

He said to him:

The verse says: “And you shall write them,”

and this implies that one requires

complete writing

[whole], and writing with ink on stones is not complete writing [because it does not endure, Tosafot], but only on a scroll is complete writing applicable;

and afterward

and after the writing, the Torah said to place it

on the doorposts

of the entrance.

And we raise an objection:

And since it is written, “And you shall write them,”

and they expound that it is impossible to write the mezuzah on the stone, but only on the scroll,

this gezerah shavah

from which we derive that one writes on a scroll

why do I need it?

After all, this gezerah shavah is superfluous.

And we answer:

If not

for deriving this

gezerah shavah, I would say: Let him write it on a stone

by engraving the writing with a knife on the stones [and through engraving one can produce complete writing even on stone]

and afterward affix it to the threshold—

and after the engraving he would affix the stone on which he engraved it in the form of the entrance, thereby fulfilling the verse “And you shall write them” with complete writing, for through engraving it is complete writing, and afterward he would affix it to the doorpost of the entrance;

it teaches us

the gezerah shavah that writing must be on a scroll and not on a stone [see the Shita Mekubbetzet for another explanation].

We learned in the Mishna:

The four passages in the tefillin prevent one another, and even if he wrote one

[one letter]

it prevents them.

And we raise an objection: It is obvious that writing one letter prevents them, for it is written, “And they shall be for totafot,” which implies an expression of being and of prevention.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It was necessary

for our Mishna to teach

only regarding the thorn of the letter yod

that it too prevents [some explain that this is the right leg of the yod, and some explain that it is the bend on the left side of the roof of the yod, which is called “the thorn of the yod” by Rabbeinu Tam].

And we raise an objection:

But this too is obvious,

that the thorn of the yod prevents, since it is part of the letter?

And we answer:

It was needed only for the other one,

a law that

Rav Yehuda taught. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Every letter that has no blank parchment

that is, no smooth margin of parchment

surrounding

it around

on its four sides,

but one letter touches another

is invalid.

And this is what is written: “And even one letter prevents them,” for even according to the halakhot and the rule, one letter prevents the tefillin, and if one letter in the tefillin is not surrounded by blank parchment, the tefillin are invalid.