Yoma 11b — the Talmud in English

Could I include

becoming obligated in a mezuzah

even ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

a gatehouse,

which is a small house before the courtyard gate, and one enters through it into the courtyard, and likewise

a portico,

which is a corridor before the house,

and

likewise

a balcony

made as a passage before the entrances of the apartments in the upper stories?

The verse says: “Upon the doorposts of your house.”

This teaches us that there is an obligation of mezuzah only in a

“house”:

Just as a house

is

designated for dwelling,

and this is what obligates it in a mezuzah,

there are excluded

all

these, which are not

themselves

designated for

the use of

dwelling,

but are merely an entranceway and passage to the house, and therefore they are exempt from mezuzah.

Could I include

obligating

even a lavatory, a tannery, a bathhouse, and a ritual immersion bath?

The verse says “house.”

And these too are not like a house. For

just as a house made for

uses of

honor,

so too every

house made for honor

is obligated in mezuzah.

These are excluded, which are not made for

uses of

honor,

for the use of a lavatory and a bathhouse is disgraceful because of their filth. And a tannery because its smell is bad. And a ritual immersion bath because one immerses in it naked. Therefore there is no obligation of mezuzah in them.

Could I include

obligating

even

the

Temple Mount, the chambers, and the courtyards,

in mezuzah?

The verse says “house.”

And we expound:

Just as an ordinary house

is

non-sacred, so too every

house is obligated only when

it is

it

non-sacred.

These are excluded, which are sacred,

and are not considered a house to become obligated in mezuzah.

And we have here a tanna who holds that storerooms and cattle sheds, ordinarily, are obligated in mezuzah.

And this is difficult concerning what we said above according to Rav Yehuda, that when unspecified everyone agrees that they are exempt.

And we conclude: Indeed,

a tiyuvta

it is!

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught before Rava: There are six gates

that are

exempt from mezuzah.

These are they:

The four gates of

the hay house, the cattle house, the wood house, and the storerooms.

And the Median gate,

whose lintel was made round like an arch, so that at the height of the entrance—where the opening of the entrance becomes rounded by the lintel—the width of the opening is reduced and becomes less than four handbreadths, which is the measure of the width of an entrance obligated in mezuzah.

And a gate that

is open above and

is not roofed

by a lintel.

And

likewise

a gate that is not ten

handbreadths high.

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

You opened

your statement

with six

gates

and concluded

your statement with seven gates exempt from mezuzah.

He said to him: Not all the gates listed in the beraita are exempt according to everyone. Rather,

the Median gate—

it is a dispute of

the tannaim.

For it was taught:

A gate whose lintel is made in a rounded form like an

arch:

Rabbi Meir obligates

it in mezuzah.

And the Sages exempt.

And they agree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

that if at its foot,

in the doorpost of the arched gate, there is a height of

ten

handbreadths before the rounding begins to reduce the width of the opening to less than four handbreadths—

this arch is obligated

in mezuzah

,

for this entrance has an opening ten high and four wide, which is the measure of an entrance obligated in mezuzah.

Thus, in the law of the Median gate, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree. Therefore Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda opened his statement with the number of gates exempt according to everyone, which are only six, and continued by saying that there is also a seventh gate, which is subject to dispute.

And

Abaye said

in explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages: The words of Rabbi Meir, who obligates an entrance whose opening was reduced in width by the rounding of the lintel, do not apply in every case.

For, as will be explained below, Rabbi Meir’s reason is not that he disputes that the measure of an entrance obligated in mezuzah is only when its width is four handbreadths and its height is ten.

Rather, he holds that sometimes the reduction by which the opening is reduced through the rounding at the height of the entrance is not considered a reduction, but we “see” it as though it were carved out and open.

And this law applies only when the bottom of the entrance is open to a width of four handbreadths.

Therefore,

everyone

agrees where the arch is indeed

ten high

handbreadths, but the rounding of the lintel begins immediately from the bottom of the entrance,

and at its foot there is not

in the doorpost of the arched entrance even a height of

three

handbreadths that is open to a width of four handbreadths.

Since there is no beginning of an entrance here below [for a height of less than three handbreadths above the ground is considered part of the ground itself],

and

it follows that there is no entrance here at all four wide; therefore

it is nothing

with regard to becoming obligated in mezuzah.

Alternatively, [and likewise], even if

there is in

the length of

the foot

of the arch a height of

three

handbreadths open to a width of four handbreadths, so that the width of the entrance is not reduced by the rounding at that height of three handbreadths, but the entire opening is low,

and

because

it is not ten high

handbreadths, it is not considered an arch that has an entrance,

and it is nothing

with regard to becoming obligated in mezuzah.

Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree

except concerning

an

arch that is

ten high

handbreadths,

and there is in

the length of

its foot

a height of

three

handbreadths, before the rounding begins to reduce the width of the opening to less than four handbreadths.

And

above this height, the opening begins to become narrower in width, until

its width is not four

handbreadths in the upper seven handbreadths of the height of the entrance,

and

also

there is

in this arch a wall at the sides of the entrance in which there is room

to carve

it,

and

through this carving

to complete it to

a width of

four

handbreadths.

For

Rabbi Meir holds:

Since at its bottom it has an entrance four wide and three high, we see the entrance as though they were

carving

on both sides of the wall, and its entire height thereby becomes as though it were four handbreadths wide, like its bottom, and this will help us

complete

the measure to become obligated in mezuzah.

They carve [

they see the wall as though it had been carved on its sides, and its entire height had become four handbreadths wide, like its bottom, in order

to complete

the measure of an entrance; therefore it is obligated in mezuzah.

And the Rabbis hold: They do not carve to complete

the measure of the entrance; therefore it is exempt from mezuzah.

The Sages taught: A synagogue, a woman’s house, and a partners’ house—

it is obligated in mezuzah.

And we question:

Is it obvious

that they are obligated? For why should we exempt them?

And we answer:

What might you say,

perhaps you would say that a woman’s house was excluded because it is written

“your house

” in the masculine form, and the verse came to exclude:

and not her house

of a woman.

And likewise there would be room to exclude a synagogue because it belongs to many, and likewise a partners’ house, because it is written

“your house

” in the singular, and the verse came to exclude:

and not your house

of many.

Therefore,

it teaches us

the tanna in the beraita that they too are obligated.

And we challenge:

But say so also,

that they were excluded by this verse and are indeed exempt; for what basis does the tanna have to obligate them!?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates—

so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied.”

“So that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied.”

And we expound from the juxtaposition of the verses that the obligation of mezuzah applies to everyone who desires life.

And from now it is obvious that even a woman’s house and a partners’ house are obligated in mezuzah,

for we must say: Is it only

these [

the men and individuals]

desire life, and these [

the women and the partners]

do not desire life!?

Yet everyone desires life.

And we challenge:

Rather,

if so, the exclusion of

“your house

”—

why do I need it?

And we answer: There is no exclusion here; rather, this verse is expounded

in accordance with Rava.

For Rava said: From where is it derived that the mezuzah must be affixed on the right side of the entrance? As it is stated, “your house.” And we expound:

the way of your entering.

When a person uproots his foot [

when a person lifts his foot and begins to walk]—his

right foot he lifts first.

Another teaching was taught

concerning the impurity of house afflictions:

A synagogue, a partners’ house, and a woman’s house—

become impure through afflictions.

And we question:

Is it obvious

that these houses too become impure through afflictions like other houses? Why did the tanna need to teach them?

And we answer:

What might you say,

perhaps you would say that since it is stated in the passage of house afflictions,

“And he who owns the house shall come,”

the woman’s house was thereby excluded by the word “him,” which is masculine, teaching us:

and not “

that

her

house.”

And likewise, “him” rather than “them” can be expounded to exclude a house belonging to many.

It teaches us

the tanna that these houses too become impure through afflictions.

And we challenge:

But say so also,

that they do not become impure, on account of the exclusion in the verse.

And we answer:

The verse says: “And I shall place the affliction of leprosy

in a house of the land of your possession.”

“In a house of the land of your possession.”

And this implies including every house, including one belonging to partners and to women.

And we challenge:

Rather,

if so,

“him”—

why do I need it!?

And we answer: This verse comes to teach us that afflictions come on account of narrowness of spirit. For anyone who designates his house

“for him,”

“for him,” who does not wish to lend his utensils

to others,

and says

to one who comes to ask that he lend him a utensil

that he does not have

that utensil—his punishment is:

The Holy One, blessed be He, publicizes him,

by sending an affliction upon his house, and through this it becomes publicized that he has the utensils,

when he clears out his house

so that his utensils will not become impure.

And the verse’s use of “for him” comes to teach us:

excluding

one who

lends his utensils to others,

for he is not punished with house afflictions.

And we challenge:

Does a synagogue become impure through afflictions?

But was it not taught: Could synagogues and study halls become impure through afflictions?

The verse says, “And he who owns the house shall come.”

And we expound:

One whose

house is

designated for him.

These are excluded, which are not designated for him,

that is, for a particular person, since they serve the needs of many.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

beraita, which holds that a synagogue becomes impure through afflictions,

is Rabbi Meir

’s.

And this

beraita, which holds that synagogues do not become impure through afflictions,

is the Rabbis’

.

For it was taught

concerning the obligation of mezuzah:

A synagogue that has a dwelling for the attendant [

servant

of the synagogue is obligated in mezuzah.

And

a synagogue

that does not have a dwelling, Rabbi Meir obligates

in mezuzah, while the Sages exempt.

And with mezuzah too it says “your house,” just as concerning afflictions it says, “whose house”; and if so, according to the Sages, who exempt a synagogue from mezuzah because they expound “your house” as that which is designated for you, and not a synagogue, which is not designated for him—the same law applies concerning afflictions: they hold that it does not become impure.

Whereas Rabbi Meir, who obligates it in mezuzah, holds that it becomes impure through afflictions.

And if you wish, say:

Since we compare the law of afflictions to the obligation of mezuzah, it is possible to say that the two beraitot do not disagree. Rather,

both this and that

both hold like the

Rabbis,

that a synagogue is not a house designated for him.

And

in any event

it is not difficult.

This

beraita, which declares a synagogue impure through afflictions, deals with a synagogue

that has a dwelling

for the attendant. And just as everyone agrees that it is obligated in mezuzah, because of the attendant’s dwelling, through which it is considered designated for a particular person for dwelling, so too it becomes impure through afflictions.

And this—

the beraita that does not declare it impure through afflictions—deals with a synagogue

that does not have a dwelling.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that do not have a dwelling.

And even so, it is possible to reconcile them and say that there is no contradiction between the beraitot.