Menachot 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

And

the Sages

hold that the entire structure

is a gatehouse,

built with the garden in mind;

it was primarily made for the garden. Therefore, even though the door hinge is oriented toward the house, it is nevertheless considered an entrance to the garden and is exempt from a mezuzah. [Rashi cites another interpretation of this matter as well].

Abaye and Rava acted

in this matter

in accordance with

the words of

Rabba and Rav Yosef,

who maintain that when the door hinge is oriented toward the garden, everyone agrees that the gatehouse is exempt from a mezuzah, and they disagree only when the door hinge is oriented 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.

In all circumstances, even if the door hinge is oriented toward the garden, the gatehouse is obligated in a mezuzah, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

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

is a cavity in the floor of the upper story through which one ascended by stairs from the house to the upper story and descended from the upper story to the house. Around the stairs, four partitions were constructed so that the members of the household could not enter the upper story, and those in the upper story could not enter the house, without permission. Sometimes the partitions surrounded the stairs both in the upper story and in the house; sometimes they were only in the upper story or only in the house. There was an opening in the partition.

Rav Huna said: If it has

that shaft

one entrance

either in the upper story or in the house,

it requires one mezuzah. And if it has two entrances, it requires two mezuzot

[and the Gemara will explain below what Rav Huna is teaching].

Rav Pappa said: Infer from Rav Huna's statement that this inner room

[room]

that has four entrances

[doorways]

requires four mezuzot.

And we raised an objection: It is obvious!

Since the room has four entrances, it certainly requires four mezuzot.

And we answer:

It is necessary

even though he normally uses

one

of the entrances more than the others, nevertheless all the entrances are obligated in a mezuzah. [What we said above, that “with regard to a mezuzah one follows the regularly used entrance,” applies when there are only two entrances. In that case one follows the regularly used entrance, and only it is obligated in a mezuzah. But when there are three or more entrances, one does not follow the regularly used one, since one entrance does not exempt the others. Some explain that only an entrance used by one person, while the rest of the people enter through another entrance, is exempt. But when all the entrances are used by everyone, and one entrance is used more than the others, all the entrances are obligated in a mezuzah].

This is what Rav Pappa was teaching: Although the regular use was limited to only one entrance, all the entrances are nevertheless obligated in a mezuzah.

Ameimar said: With regard to this corner entrance

an entrance located in the corner of a house [some explain that the fourth side is entirely open; others explain (the Hazon Ish) that the entrance is formed by openings in the two adjoining walls],

it is obligated in a mezuzah.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But it has no

for this entrance

doorposts?!

He said to him: Indeed,

these ends of the walls serve as the

doorposts

of the entrance.

Rav Pappa happened

[to come]

to the home of Mar Shmuel. He saw an entrance

[one of the entrances]

that had only one doorpost, on the left

[on the left side of the entrance].

And there was

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

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who obligates an entrance in a mezuzah even when it has only one doorpost?

I can say that Rabbi Meir said

this when the doorpost is

on the right,

but when the doorpost is

on the left, who said

that Rabbi Meir considers it obligated in a mezuzah? The mezuzah must be affixed on the right!

What is the source

for this law 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 it is expounded:

Your coming shall be from the right.

That is, on the right side of one's entrance into the house.

You say

that one's coming is

from the right, or perhaps it is only from the

side

of the left?

The verse states: “Your house.”

What is the basis

for deriving from “your house” that it must be on the right side?

Rabba said: The manner of your coming

[for “your house” is expounded as referring to coming]: Affix the mezuzah in the manner in which you enter the house, and not in the manner in which you leave it. This

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

[when a person raises his foot in order to walk],

he lifts his right foot first

[at the outset]. From this it is derived that the mezuzah is affixed on the right side of the entrance into the house.

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa, before

[in the presence of]

Rav Pappa, citing Rava bar Ulla, said: From here

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

“And Jehoiada the priest took one chest and bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar on the right as one enters the House of the Lord; and the priests who guarded the threshold deposited there all the money brought into the House of the Lord.”

When a person entered the Temple courtyard from the east and proceeded westward, that chest, which stood to the north of the eastern side, was on the right of the one entering. This shows that a person's approach to the altar was from the right, and therefore they placed the chest there. From this we learn that a person's normal manner of entering is always on the right side. The same applies to a mezuzah: since the verse speaks of the manner of entering, it must be affixed on the right side.

And we explain:

What

is the source where we find the statement of

Rabbi Meir

that one doorpost is sufficient for an obligation of mezuzah?

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

But the Sages exempt it,

since it does not have two doorposts.

What is the reason of the Rabbis,

who require two doorposts? The word

“doorposts” is written,

and the minimum plural of “doorposts” is two.

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

who considers one doorpost sufficient?

As it was taught:

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

doorposts

of your house.”

I might understand

from the plain meaning of the verse—which says “doorposts” rather than “doorpost”—that the

minimum of “doorposts,”

namely, the smallest number to which the word “doorposts” can refer, is

two. When it says

“And you shall write them on the

doorposts

of your house”

in the second passage,

“And it shall be, if you surely heed,”

which need not have been stated,

since this word appears superfluous, as “doorposts” was already written in the first passage [the passage of the Shema], and consequently

it is

the word “doorposts,” mentioned in both passages,

a repetition after a repetition,

and we have a principle that

a repetition after a repetition serves only to limit. The verse limits it to one doorpost,

teaching that even when an entrance has only one doorpost, it is obligated in a mezuzah,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to derive from a repetition after a repetition that 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,” it need not have said “two”

doorposts, since the meaning of the word “doorposts” is at least two doorposts. Therefore, the word “two” is superfluous.

If so,

what does “two” teach? It establishes a principle: Wherever the word “doorposts” is stated, it refers to only one, unless the verse explicitly specifies two,

as it does in the passage concerning the Paschal offering. Accordingly, when the term “doorposts” is written without specification in the laws of mezuzah, it is interpreted as referring to one doorpost. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who considers one doorpost sufficient for the obligation of mezuzah.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning mezuzah:

“And you shall write

them on the doorposts.”

I might think that he should 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 the context of mezuzah

“writing,” and it is stated elsewhere

in the passage concerning a bill of divorce

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

in the passage concerning a bill of divorce: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance.”

Just as there

in the case of a bill of divorce, the writing is

on a scroll ,

so too here,

in the case of a mezuzah, the writing is

on a scroll.

Or perhaps you should follow this approach?

Maybe we should derive the gzera shava differently:

It is stated here

in the context of mezuzah

“writing,” and it is stated elsewhere

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

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

“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 too here,

in the case of a mezuzah,

on the stones?!

Let us see what it resembles,

the mezuzah:

We derive

the writing of a mezuzah, which is

writing that applies for all generations, from the writing

of a bill of divorce, which is writing

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

in the case of a

mezuzah

from the writing of the Torah on the stones, which is

writing that does not apply for all generations,

but was merely a temporary directive.

Likewise, both in mezuzot and in a bill of divorce, the writing must be done with ink ,

as it is stated elsewhere,

in the Book of Jeremiah, concerning Baruch ben Neriah's writing of the passage of Lamentations:

“And Baruch said to them: From his mouth he read these words to me, and I wrote them in the scroll with ink.”

From this we derive that wherever writing in a scroll is required, it must be written with ink.

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

“And you shall write them on the

doorposts,”

which implies that the writing must be directly on the threshold, rather than on parchment.

Yet you say that we should derive

that the mezuzah is written on parchment by means of the gzera shava of

“writing” from “writing”

from a bill of divorce!? How can the plain meaning of the verse, which requires writing on the threshold, be overridden by deriving a gzera shava?

He said to him:

The verse says, “And you shall write,”

which implies that it must be

a complete writing

[and writing in ink on stones is not a complete writing [because it does not endure, Tosafot]; rather, only writing on a scroll can be considered a complete writing],

and afterward

after the writing, the Torah says to place it

on the doorposts

of the entrance.

And we raise an objection:

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

and we derive that the mezuzah cannot be written on the stone but only on a scroll,

why do I need this gzera shava

from which we derive that it is written on a scroll?

It is unnecessary!

This gzera shava is superfluous.

And we answer:

If not

for deriving this

gzera shava, I would have said: Let him write it on a stone

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

and afterward affix it to the threshold—

after engraving the stone, he would affix the engraved stone as part of the entrance, thereby fulfilling the verse “And you shall write” with a complete writing, since engraving produces a complete writing, and afterward he would affix it to the doorpost of the entrance.

It teaches us

that the gzera shava establishes that the writing must be on a scroll and not on a stone [see the Shita Mekubetzet for another interpretation].

We learned in the Mishna:

The four passages in phylacteries invalidate one another, and even if he wrote one

[one letter]

it invalidates them.

And we raise an objection: It is obvious that writing even one letter invalidates them, since it is written, “And they shall be,” which implies existence and validity.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It was necessary

for our Mishna to teach

only concerning the crown of the letter yod,

that it too is indispensable [some explain that this is the right leg of the yod; others explain that it is the hook on the left side of the roof of the yod, which is called the crown of the yod according to Rabbeinu Tam].

And we raise an objection:

But this too is obvious,

that the crown of the yod is indispensable, since it is part of the letter?

And we resolve:

It is necessary only for the other matter

the law that

Rav Yehuda taught. For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any letter that does not have blank parchment

that is, a blank margin of parchment

surrounding

it on all sides

from its four directions,

but touches another letter

is invalid.

And this is what is written: “And even one letter prevents them”—even the halakhot and form of a single letter can invalidate the tefillin; and if one letter in the tefillin is not surrounded by blank parchment, the tefillin are invalid.