Shabbat 79b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

parchment —

enough to write upon it a small section.

And he raises a contradiction:

from that which was taught:

In the process of preparing the hide, its thickness is divided into two.

The upper, outer side, above which is the hair, is called klaf.

But the lower, inner side, toward the flesh, is called dukhsostus, after “dukh” [place] “sostus” [flesh in the Greek language]. Tosafot, s.v. klaf.

Klaf and dukhsostus,

the measure of each of them for carrying out is

enough to write upon it a mezuzah,

that is, the section of Shema and the section of Vehaya im shamoa.

And this is difficult for our Mishna, for it teaches that one is liable for the measure of writing only the section of Shema?

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “mezuzah”? —

A “mezuzah”

that is in phylacteries.

For the intention is not to an actual mezuzah; rather, since each section of the four sections found in the head-phylacteries [written on a separate piece of klaf] is called a “mezuzah,” the tanna also used here the term “mezuzah,” and his intention is to the section of Shema, which is the smallest among them.

We inquire about this:

And

when

he calls the

sections

of phylacteries “mezuzah”?

And we answer:

Yes!

And it was taught

that we find this as well:

Phylactery straps,

when they are

with the phylacteries —

they render the hands impure,

the hands that touch them, as is the law regarding hands that touched a Torah scroll, for the Sages decreed [in the eighteen decrees, above 14a] impurity upon the hands, with regard to their disqualifying teruma through contact.

But if the straps were

by themselves —

they

do not

render the hands impure.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: One who touches a strap —

is pure.

For his hands do not become impure

until he touches the box,

the compartment of the phylacteries.

Rabbi Zakkai in his name,

of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda,

says:

Even one who touches the box

is pure, until he touches the mezuzah itself,

the klaf inside the compartment.

We have thus found that the tanna calls the klaf of phylacteries a “mezuzah.”

And we challenge: How is it possible to say that what we learned in the beraita, “klaf and dukhsostus, enough to write upon it a mezuzah,” refers to the klaf of phylacteries?

But from the fact that it teaches

in the continuation of the beraita, in the

final clause: klaf —

enough to write upon it the small section that is in phylacteries, namely, Shema Yisrael!

By inference, the first clause,

which teaches, “klaf, enough to write upon it a mezuzah” —

we are dealing with an actual mezuzah,

and not with the mezuzah in phylacteries.

And it is difficult, then: the first clause contradicts the final clause. For the first clause teaches, “klaf, enough to write upon it a mezuzah,” whereas the final clause teaches, “enough to write the small section that is in phylacteries”?

And we answer:

This is what it teaches,

the beraita:

Klaf and dukhsostus —

what is their measure?

Dukhsostus —

its measure is

enough to write upon it a mezuzah.

For one does not write phylacteries upon dukhsostus, only a mezuzah.

And in the final clause it explains the measure of the

klaf,

which is

enough to write upon it the small section that is in phylacteries, namely, Shema Yisrael.

Rav said: Dukhsostus is like klaf —

just as one writes phylacteries upon klaf, so one writes phylacteries upon dukhsostus.

And we challenge Rav: But

we learned

in our Mishna: One who carries out

klaf —

the measure for which one becomes liable is

enough to write upon it the small section that is in phylacteries, namely, Shema Yisrael.

And we infer:

“Klaf,” yes.

It alone has the small measure of enough to write Shema Yisrael. But

dukhsostus

is not sufficient with this measure; rather, it requires a larger measure, namely, enough to write upon it the two sections of a mezuzah.

And if it is as Rav says, that dukhsostus is also fit for phylacteries, the tanna of the Mishna should also have measured the carrying out of dukhsostus by the small measure of the section of Shema Yisrael in phylacteries, stringently?

And we answer:

For the mitzva

in the optimal manner, indeed we require specifically klaf for phylacteries. Therefore, with regard to carrying out klaf, we measure only by phylacteries and not by dukhsostus. For although it too is valid in principle for phylacteries, nevertheless it is not the practice to use it for phylacteries, since it is not optimal, but is for a mezuzah. Therefore, we measure it by a mezuzah.

Come and hear

from that which was taught:

A halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai:

a.

Phylacteries —

are written

on klaf.

b.

And a mezuzah —

is written

on dukhsostus!

c.

Klaf —

one writes upon it

on the side of flesh,

on its inner side, toward the flesh of the animal.

d.

Dukhsostus —

one writes upon it

on the side of hair,

on its outer side, toward the hair of the animal.

It follows that specifically klaf is valid for phylacteries, and not dukhsostus. And this is difficult for Rav?

And we answer: That statement too is

for the mitzva.

But in principle dukhsostus is also valid for phylacteries.

And we challenge:

But it was taught:

If one

changed —

it is invalid!?

And we answer:

It refers to a mezuzah,

for if one wrote it on klaf, it is invalid. But if one wrote phylacteries on dukhsostus, it is valid.

And we challenge:

But it was taught: If one changed in this and in that —

it is invalid.

And it implies that both a mezuzah and phylacteries are invalid if one changed in them.

And we answer: When it teaches, “If one changed in this and in that,” the intention is not that one changed in phylacteries and in a mezuzah. Rather,

both this and that, “if one changed in this and in that” —

if one changed in both cases,”—

refers only to a mezuzah,

and it applies only to it.

And

there are two changes that invalidate it:

a.

That one wrote them

for a mezuzah

on klaf,

and not according to its law, on dukhsostus.

And even if one wrote it on klaf on its outer side, which is writing

on the side of hair,

as is the law of a mezuzah, which is written on the side of hair [for the law of a mezuzah is that it be written on dukhsostus, and the place of writing upon it is on its outer side, on the side of hair], and did not write in the usual manner on klaf on its inner side — nevertheless the mezuzah is invalid, because one changed from dukhsostus to klaf.

b.

Alternatively,

another change that invalidates a mezuzah is, for example, if one wrote it

on dukhsostus on the side of flesh

and not on the side of hair.

But with phylacteries, it is not invalidated if one changed from klaf to dukhsostus.

And if you wish, say: “If one changed in this and in that”,

the intention is both in phylacteries and in a mezuzah, and the tanna of the beraita invalidated them.

And this is not difficult for Rav — for it is stated as a dispute of

Tannaitic authorities

and is based on their disagreement.

For there are tannaim who disagree and validate phylacteries if one changed in them, and Rav ruled in accordance with them.

For it was taught: If one changed in this and in that —

it is invalid.

Rabbi Aha validates in the name of Rabbi Ahi bar Hanina; and some say: in the name of Rabbi Yaakov bar Hanina. [

Rav holds that Rabbi Ahai validates only if one changed in phylacteries by writing them on dukhsostus, but not when one changed in a mezuzah by writing it on klaf. Therefore, he did not say that klaf is like dukhsostus, but only said that dukhsostus is like klaf. Rashi and Tosafot].

Rav Pappa said: Rav stated —

in accordance with the tanna of the school of Menashe.

For the tanna of the school of Menashe taught: If one wrote it on paper or on cloth, it is invalid. On klaf or on gevיל [

a whole processed hide that has not yet been divided across its width],

or on dukhsostus, it is valid.

We inquire about this:

“If one wrote it” —

what

did he write: phylacteries or a mezuzah?

If you say a mezuzah?

It is impossible. For

do we write a mezuzah on klaf?!

For that is certainly invalid.

Rather, is it not

that he wrote

phylacteries

on dukhsostus?

It follows that this beraita of the tanna of the school of Menashe holds that phylacteries are valid even on dukhsostus, and Rav holds in accordance with it.

And we challenge:

And according to your reasoning,

that you establish it as referring to phylacteries, it is still difficult:

Do we write phylacteries on gevיל?!

And we conclude:

Rather, when that statement was taught, it was

with regard to a Torah scroll,

which is also valid on gevיל.

Let us say that it supports

Rav, from that which was taught:

The head-phylacteries may not be changed to make them hand-phylacteries, because this is a lowering from their sanctity, for the sanctity of head-phylacteries is more stringent than that of hand-phylacteries.

Similarly: Phylacteries that have worn out and a Torah scroll that has worn out —

И делаем вывод: причина

one does not make a mezuzah from them,

by cutting the sections from the Torah scroll or from phylacteries [of the hand, for all four sections are on one piece of klaf], the sections of Shema and Vehaya im shamoa, and placing them in a mezuzah —

because one does not lower from a more stringent sanctity to a less stringent sanctity.

For the sanctity of a mezuzah is less than the sanctity of a Torah scroll and phylacteries.

And we infer:

The reason

that one does not make a mezuzah from phylacteries is

because one does not lower

from their sanctity.

But

if we were to say that one

does lower,

one would

make them.

And it should be examined: these phylacteries —

what were they written on?

Were they not written on dukhsostus?

For if they were written on klaf, even without this reason that one does not lower, it would be impossible to make a mezuzah from them, since it is valid only on dukhsostus.

It follows that phylacteries are valid also on dukhsostus, a proof for Rav.

And we reject this:

No!

Here we are dealing

with that which was written on klaf,

and in fact phylacteries are not valid on dukhsostus.

And we challenge:

Do we write a mezuzah on klaf?!

For it was necessary to say that one does not make a mezuzah from phylacteries because one does not lower.

And we answer:

Yes!

And it was taught

so:

If one wrote

a mezuzah

on klaf, on paper, or on cloth, it is invalid.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would write it, a mezuzah, on klaf, because

it

is preserved,

for klaf is stronger than dukhsostus. And the tanna of the beraita concerning “phylacteries that have worn out” holds like Rabbi Meir.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this,

that a mezuzah is valid on klaf,

with regard to Rav as well, do not say

that he said

“dukhsostus is like klaf.”

Rather, say

that Rav said this:

“Klaf is like dukhsostus: just as one writes a mezuzah upon dukhsostus, so one writes a mezuzah upon klaf.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Ink, enough to write

two letters.