Yoma 10b — the Talmud in English

Perhaps

there is concern that people will be led to err, because they will think that these fruits are subject to the obligation of tithing by Torah law, and

will

come

to separate

a tithe

from produce that is obligated—

from produce whose obligation is by Torah law—

for produce that is exempt,

for produce whose obligation to be tithed is only by rabbinic law.

And

they will likewise come to err in the opposite direction, to separate

from exempt produce for obligated produce!

Rather, Abaye said:

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis did not disagree about the Torah obligation to affix a mezuzah—the scroll placed on a doorway—to the Chamber of Parhedrin

during the seven

days of seclusion.

Everyone agrees,

and even Rabbi Yehuda concedes

that it is obligated

by Torah law, just as he obligates the festival booth to have a mezuzah during the festival, because one lives in it during those days. The same applies to the Chamber of Parhedrin, which is obligated by Torah law to have a mezuzah during the days when the koen gadol—the senior koen who served in the Temple—lives there.

When they disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it is about the obligation to affix a mezuzah

during the rest of the year,

when the dwelling is occupied for only seven days.

The Rabbis hold

that when a place is used as a dwelling,

we decree

that it must have a mezuzah even

during the rest of the year,

because of those

seven

days during which it is occupied. This is a general rabbinic decree. This is why the Chamber of Parhedrin had a mezuzah throughout the year.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds

that since we find several chambers that were used as dwellings from time to time, yet did not have a mezuzah throughout the year, it follows that because of those few days of residence

we do not decree

that the place must have a mezuzah throughout the year. In the Chamber of Parhedrin, there was a special decree requiring a mezuzah throughout the year, as will be explained later: it was appropriate to consider it a dwelling so that people would not say about the koen gadol that during those days of seclusion he was like “a prisoner in a prison.”

Rava said to him:

How can you say that the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the sukkah is obligated to have a mezuzah during Sukkot itself?

But

the Mishna explicitly states that the Rabbis exempt it even during those seven days when one must dwell in the sukkah, as

“the festival sukkah

during the festival”

is what it teaches.

If so, how can one say that everyone agrees that the Chamber of Parhedrin is obligated by Torah law to have a mezuzah during the seven days of seclusion?

Rather, Rava said: During the rest of the year—

everyone agrees that it is exempt

from a mezuzah, both the sukkah and the Chamber of Parhedrin.

And

when they disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, both regarding the chamber and regarding the sukkah, is

during

those

seven

days during which it is occupied.

These are two different disputes.

With regard to the sukkah—

the reason

for the dispute is

distinct

and is unrelated to the dispute about the mezuzah in the chamber:

And with regard to the chamber—

the reason is distinct,

and has no connection to the dispute about the sukkah.

And we explain: the dispute concerning the

sukkah—

its reason is distinct

:

Rabbi Yehuda,

who obligates it to have a mezuzah during the festival,

acts in accordance with his view

.

As

Rabbi Yehuda says in tractate Sukkah, concerning the validity of a sukkah that is more than twenty cubits high: [

In the view of the Rabbis, it is invalid because walls that are so high make the sukkah a “permanent dwelling,” whereas a sukkah must be a temporary dwelling. In the view of Rabbi Yehuda, on the contrary,

a sukkah—

“must be a permanent dwelling”!

Therefore, a height of more than twenty cubits does not invalidate it, and consequently the dwelling in a sukkah is considered a permanent dwelling for other laws as well.

And it is also obligated

in a

mezuzah,

when one lives in it during the festival.]

And the Rabbis,

who exempt it, also

act in accordance with their view

.

As

the Rabbis say:

a sukkah—

“must be a temporary dwelling”!

And a temporary dwelling is not considered a dwelling with regard to the obligation of a mezuzah.

And

therefore

it is not obligated to have a mezuzah.

And

if the dispute concerning the

chamber during the seven days of seclusion also had

a

distinct reason, unrelated to their dispute about the sukkah, it would be as follows:

и не связано с их разногласием относительно сукки, то:

The Rabbis,

who obligate the chamber to have a mezuzah, do so because

they hold

that

“a dwelling against one’s will—

is still called a dwelling.”

That is, a person’s dwelling in a house against his will is nevertheless considered a dwelling for the purpose of becoming obligated in a mezuzah. Therefore, although the koen gadol does not live there willingly, but does so because we are commanded to separate him for those seven days, and he lives there against his will, the chamber is nevertheless considered a dwelling and is obligated to have a mezuzah during those days.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “A dwelling against one’s will—

is not called a dwelling,”

and therefore the chamber is not obligated by Torah law to have a mezuzah.

But a sukkah is not a dwelling against one’s will, because one leaves it for his house, to be with his wife and children, and goes back and forth as he wishes.

Similarly, the other chambers that were in the Temple and contained living quarters were not considered dwellings that required a mezuzah, since the koanim did not live in them willingly, but only for the needs of their service.

And

only

by rabbinic law did they institute for it—for the Chamber of Parhedrin—to have a mezuzah, so that

they would do so

so that people would not say, “The koen gadol is a prisoner in a prison.”

And we inquire:

Who is the tanna for this teaching that the Sages taught in a beraita: