Menachos 32 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף ל״א–ל״ב presents practical הלכות of מזוזה writing and placement alongside broader principles of כשרות, לשמה, and the כוח of מנהג. The גמרא reports practices of רב הונא about rolling a מזוזה toward *Shema* and writing its פרשיות as סתומות, then contrasts this with רבי שמעון בן אלעזר’s approach of פתוחות and writing on דוכסתוס, concluding that רב’s הלכה aligns with him regarding required margins. The שיעור then uses the sugya of חליצה in מנעל versus סנדל to argue that accepted practice can determine הלכה, and applies that to the common מנהג to write מזוזות סתומות. The continuation addresses whether קדושה rules allow converting materials between תפילין, ספר תורה, and מזוזה; the requirements of קלף versus דוכסתוס and of שרטוט; and concludes with laws of honoring a ספר תורה on a bed, פסולים in מזוזה writing and placement, and the case of בית מונבז המלך that informs later פוסקים about removing a מזוזה from a non-obligated dwelling.
- A Rav Chelbo says he sees Rav Huna roll the מזוזה *kolapei Shema*, rolling from the end toward the beginning, from *echad* toward *Shema*. A Gemara derives that Rav Huna makes the מזוזה’s פרשיות סתומות, ending *Shema* and beginning *Vehaya im shamoa* on the same line or arranging the line breaks so the next פרשה does not begin at the line’s start in the manner of a פתוחה. A Shiur infers from the Gemara that a מזוזה should be rolled, while citing ספר מזוזות ביתך that לכתחילה it is rolled but בדיעבד an unrolled מזוזה is acceptable, proving it from a coming sugya about writing directly on the doorway. A View says that if a מזוזה was initially installed unrolled and later is changed to rolled, no new ברכה is recited because בדיעבד the original is acceptable.
- A Common practice wraps a rolled מזוזה in plastic to prevent damage, especially outdoors. A She’eilos uTeshuvos שבט הקהתי allows putting the plastic on before rolling because an unrolled מזוזה can be acceptable בדיעבד, so plastic-first does not invalidate. A Ruling still states לכתחילה the מזוזה is rolled first in the Gemara’s direction and only afterward wrapped.
- A Beraisa teaches that Rami writes a מזוזה on דוכסתוס like a narrow page and leaves רווח on top and on bottom. A Note adds that some פוסקים consider leaving additional room at the beginning for rolling and aligning the outer *Shem Shakai* with the internal *Shem Hashem*. A Beraisa states he makes the פרשיות פתוחות and justifies it because the two פרשיות are not סמוכות in the תורה, since *Shema* is in ואתחנן and *Vehaya im shamoa* is in עקב. A Statement says Rav Chananel says in the name of Rav that הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר, and the Gemara rejects reading this as a ruling about פתוחה versus סתומה and instead sets it as a ruling about the required רווח.
- A Gemara asks how much רווח is needed and answers like the measure of an *atba d’safrei*, a piece of wood used to keep writing material from rolling. A Shiur cites other פוסקים who measure the margin as enough space for letters like ל or final ן or final ך to extend fully without crowding. A Gemara presses that Rav follows מנהג and notes that contemporary practice is to write מזוזות סתומות, so Rav’s ruling is understood as addressing margins rather than פתוחה versus סתומה.
- A Gemara brings Rav’s teaching that if Eliyahu says to do חליצה with a מנעל they listen, but if he says not to do it with a סנדל they do not listen because the people already have the מנהג to use a סנדל. A Parallel version in Rav Yosef frames the point as listening if Eliyahu forbids מנעל but not listening if he forbids סנדל because the מנהג is established. A Gemara explains the dispute as whether מנעל is acceptable לכתחילה, and uses it to show that accepted practice becomes central. A Tosafos explains that despite the general rule to follow Rabbah over Rav Yosef, here practice supports מנעל because people are uncertain what qualifies as a סנדל, and also because Rabbah and Rav Yosef are transmitting earlier views rather than arguing directly. A Beis Yosef quotes the Rambam that חולצין במנעל לכתחילה, while the Rif and Rosh hold לכתחילה אין חולצין במנעל, and the Rosh adds that in contemporary times the מנהג is to use מנעל because a סנדל is hard to obtain. A Yerushalmi statement appears that מנהג מבטל הלכה, and the Shiur cites the Meiri limiting deference to מנהג when רבנן impose a גזירה, the Rambam in פירוש המשניות applying *Torah lo bashamayim hi* to claims of heavenly knowledge, and the Ritva in פסחים warning against מנהג לקולא when it conflicts with divine will, while the Maharik argues for broad כוח of מנהג. A Conclusion states that when something is known אסור מדאורייתא the מנהג is not followed, while for איסור מדרבנן a מחלוקת הפוסקים remains whether the מנהג is stronger.
- A Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that it is a מצוה to make the sections סתומות, and if they are made פתוחות it is still valid. A Reading explains that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר’s “פתוחות” means even if made פתוחות it is כשר, not that it is required.
- A Beraisa rules that תפילין של יד can be made into תפילין של ראש, but not vice versa, because of מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין, and the shiur presents reasons for the higher קדושה of תפילין של ראש, including the presence of the ש on the head-tefillin, the four compartments, and the visibility implied by “וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם השם נקרא עליך.” A Beraisa similarly rules that worn-out ספר תורה or תפילין cannot be made into a מזוזה because קדושה חמורה cannot be lowered to קדושה קלה, and it treats תפילין as holier than מזוזה because תפילין contain four פרשיות while מזוזה contains two. A Gemara asks that if not for the קדושה issue, conversion should be allowed, but challenges this because *Shema* and *Vehaya im shamoa* appear as סתומות in a ספר תורה while the assumed מזוזה format is פתוחות. A Gemara answers that the beraisa could be describing a case of “להשלים,” such as sewing to complete missing lines, and ראשונים propose other constructions involving top and bottom positioning to allow פתוחות consistent with practice.
- A Beraisa presents a הלכה למשה מסיני that תפילין are written on קלף and מזוזה on דוכסתוס, with קלף written במקום בשר and דוכסתוס written במקום שיער. A Gemara first proposes this difference is only למצוה and not מעכב, then challenges it with a statement that שינוי renders it פסול, and distinguishes that stringency as applying to תפילין while a מזוזה written on קלף remains כשר. A Further challenge cites a beraisa that says שינה בין בזה בין בזה פסול, and the Gemara offers a reading that it still refers only to תפילין by detailing invalid placements on קלף and דוכסתוס. A Second approach treats the פסול as applying to both תפילין and מזוזה, and then resolves the tension by stating that whether שינוי invalidates in both is a תנאים dispute, with one view invalidating and רבי אחא מכשיר, reported in the name of Rav Acha bar d’Chanina or Rabbi Yaakov bar Chanina.
- A Gemara asks that even if parchment-type issues are resolved, a מזוזה requires שרטוט, citing Rav Hama in the name of Rav that a מזוזה without שרטוט is פסול and Rav Binyamin bar Chilki calling it הלכה למשה מסיני. A Beraisa in the name of Rav Yeremya says in the name of Rabbeinu that תפילין and מזוזה are written שלא מן הכתב and need no שרטוט, and the Gemara concludes הלכתא that תפילין do not require שרטוט while מזוזה does, while both may be written without copying from another text because *migras gerisan*. A Rambam explains תפילין do not require שרטוט because they are covered, while a Ran in מגילה connects differences to the checking schedule, with תפילין checked more often than מזוזה. A Tosafos in סוכה raises whether שרטוט can be added afterward, and רבי עקיבא איגר reads the Gemara as proof that שרטוט must precede writing for מזוזה. A Tosafos asks why the Gemara assumes תפילין cannot have שרטוט, and answers from a Yerushalmi that “כל הפטור מן הדבר ועושהו נקרא הדיוט,” implying one should not add it as a needless practice. A Nimukei Yosef adds that tefillin parchment is thin and may tear with sirtut. A Tosafos in גיטין notes a סופר cannot write straight without sirtut, and תרומת הדשן argues that using sirtut for neatness is not called being a הדיוט because it is not a חומרא against halacha but a craft need. A Mishnah Berurah states that the מנהג today is to use שרטוט for תפילין to ensure neat writing. A Bach contends that sirtut made for תפילין is not valid for מזוזה because מזוזה’s sirtut requires כוונה לשמה that is not present when one is not obligated in tefillin’s sirtut.
- A Rav Chelkiah bar Ika reports seeing Rav Huna sit on a bed with a ספר תורה present, overturn a basket to create a separation, place the ספר תורה on it, and then sit. A Gemara explains he holds it is אסור to sit on a bed that has a ספר תורה on it, against Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan who permits it. A Story about Rabbi Eliezer jumping off a bed when he realizes a ספר תורה is there is answered by saying that case involved the ספר תורה on the ground, which is certainly unacceptable. A Practical ruling is given that לכתחילה one should not sit on the same bed or bench as a ספר תורה or sefarim unless they are placed on an elevated surface, with some requiring a separation of up to ten טפחים.
- A Shmuel rule states that if one wrote a מזוזה “כאיגרת” it is פסול, explained as either lacking proper שרטוט or lacking proper spelling accuracy. A Reason is derived by a גזירה שוה of “כתיבה” from “וכתבתם” by מזוזה to “וכתב לה ספר כריתות” by גט, requiring proper ספר-like writing standards. A Shmuel rule states that if one affixes a מזוזה “במקל” it is פסול, explained either as placing it on a pole leaning against the wall or hanging it down on a wooden piece from the top of the doorway. A Beraisa adds that if one hangs it on a pole or places it behind the door, it is סכנה and there is no מצוה, explained either as physical danger from striking it or spiritual danger from lacking the protection attributed to a properly placed מזוזה.
- A Beraisa notes that the household of Monbaz HaMelech would do such nonstandard placement in their inns because they traveled and were not obligated in מזוזה there, so their placement served only as a זכר למצוה. A Shu”t שבט הלוי ח״ט סימן רס״א derives that a מזוזה placed where there is no חיוב may be taken down when leaving. A Discussion addresses a summer home, with a Shu”t משנה הלכות citing a Yerushalmi that even a voluntarily placed מזוזה should not be removed when departing. A Sefer ארחות רבינו records that the Chazon Ish says that even temporary residents should not take the מזוזה when they leave, and the Satmar Rav is cited likewise. A Rogatchover explanation distinguishes Monbaz’s case as placement done upfront with explicit intent of temporary use, making it different from a standard installation without that intent.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions