Menachos 34 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Menachos 34a opens with the *sugya* of multi-level homes and multiple entrances and rules that each functional doorway can create its own obligation of *mezuzah*, even when one entrance is used more than the others. It then develops the defining features of a doorway that is obligated, including corner entrances and doorways with only one *pazim*, and derives that the *mezuzah* is placed on the right side based on *derech bi’ascha*. The text moves from *mezuzah* to *tefillin*, deriving requirements of *kesivah tamah* and *mukaf gvil*, the validity implications of missing even fine details like the *kotzo shel yud*, and practical rulings about what counts as separations visible to the naked eye. It concludes with core *tefillin* structures and ordering, including the four compartments of *tefillin shel rosh*, the writing/assembly rules for both *shel rosh* and *shel yad*, the principle of *ma’alin ba’kodesh*, and the dispute about the order of the *parshiyos* (Rashi vs Rabbeinu Tam) along with related practices and questions.
- A two-storied home has stairs enclosed by *mechitzos* to preserve privacy, and entry requires passing through doors in those partitions. Rav Huna rules that if there is one entrance then one *mezuzah* is required, and if there are two entrances then two *mezuzos* are required, with placement depending on which way the door opens. Rav Papa infers that an *androna* with four doors requires four *mezuzos*, and the *Gemara* teaches that even if one doorway is used regularly, every doorway still requires its own *mezuzah*. The *Shitah* explains in the name of the *R"ם* that Rav Papa reads Rav Huna as including cases where the stairway partitions have multiple doors, with one used more than another, and the obligation remains for all.
- The *Noda BiYehudah Mahadura Tinina Yoreh De’ah* סימן קפ"ד rules that a doorway that lies flat on the floor is not called a *mezuzah*, because *mezuzos* means a standing doorway, and therefore a flat opening is not obligated. He brings proof from this *Gemara* and Rashi’s emphasis that the doors around the stairway are standing doors, implying that a mere hole between floors would not be *chayav mezuzah*. The *Minchas Elazar* חלק א סימן לו accepts that a fully flat doorway is exempt but raises the case of a slanted doorway, and he argues that in *hilchos mezuzah* something on a slant is considered standing because the *mezuzah* itself is placed on a slant. He therefore concludes that a slanted doorway is *chayav mezuzah*.
- A corner entrance (*pitcha de’karna*) is *chayav mezuzah* according to Ameimar. Rav Ashi challenges because it lacks two doorposts, and Ameimar answers that the wall ends serve as the posts. Rav Papa visits Mar Shmuel and sees a doorway with only one *pazim* on the left side and a *mezuzah* was placed, and he challenges which view supports that. The response is that Rabbi Meir’s obligation for a one-*pazim* entrance is stated for a case where the post is on the right, not on the left.
- The derivation for placing the *mezuzah* on the right side is learned from “*bi’ascha derech yamin*,” and the *Levush* explains that “*beisecha*” is superfluous next to “*uvish’arecha*” and therefore teaches *derech bi’ascha*. Rava explains that *derech bi’ascha* is to the right because a person begins walking with the right foot first, and this rule applies to *mezuzah* as a law of the house rather than a law of the individual. The *Shach* in *Yoreh De’ah* סימן רפח סעיף קטן ה rules that even if the only residents are left-handed, the *mezuzah* still goes on the right because *tefillin* is *mitzvah sheb’gufo* while *mezuzah* is *din b’bayis*. The *Taz* suggests that if most residents begin walking with the left foot perhaps the left side should be considered, but the text states that is not the *halachah*. Rav Shmuel bar Acha cites a proof from the verse about Yehoyada haKohen placing a collection chest “*miyamin b’vo ish beis Hashem*,” and the *Shulchan Aruch* links this right-side concept to stepping back in *Shemoneh Esrei* by moving the left foot first because it corresponds to *kiv’yachol* Hashem’s right.
- A *braisa* states that a house with only one *pazim* is *chayav mezuzah* according to Rabbi Meir and *patur* according to Chachamim. Chachamim ground their view in “*mezuzos*” as plural, requiring two doorposts. Rabbi Meir’s view is derived through *derashah*, with Rabbi Yishmael teaching that the repetition of “*mezuzos*” creates a *ribuy achar ribuy* that results in a reduction to one post, and Rabbi Akiva teaching from “*al hamashkof v’al shtei mezuzos*” that the word *shtei* establishes a *binyan av* that “*mezuzos*” means one unless the verse specifies two. The text applies this to practice by distinguishing between a right-side wall end that appears as a doorway, which receives a *mezuzah*, and a left-side-only case, which does not.
- A teaching begins with the possibility of writing the *mezuzah* directly on stones, and the *Hagahos Maimoni* treats this as support for the Rambam regarding whether the material must be made *lishmah*, since stones are not made *lishmah*. The *Gemara* rejects writing on stones by linking “*kesivah*” of *mezuzah* to “*kesivah*” of *get*—“*v’chasav lah sefer kerisus*”—and concludes that *mezuzah* requires writing on a *sefer*. The text notes the question from earlier that *mezuzah* must be on *klaf* and cites explanations, including the *Beis HaLevi* that the stone discussion is *b’di’eved* and another approach that the *klaf* discussion defines the rules when writing on *klaf* but does not necessarily exclude stone. The *Gemara* weighs an alternative comparison to “*v’chasavta al ha’avanim*” and prefers learning a perpetual writing (*mezuzah*) from a perpetual writing (*get*) rather than from a one-time writing on stones. Rav Acha challenges that “*u’chsavtam al mezuzos*” sounds like writing on the doorpost itself, and the *Gemara* answers that “*u’chsavtam*” implies *kesivah temah* and only afterward “*al mezuzos*,” with *Tosafos* explaining that wall-writing would not endure and would not be a proper *kesivah temah*. The *Gemara* adds that without the *gezeirah shavah* one might engrave the text into a stone and affix it to the doorway, and it rejects that as the required method.
- The *Mishnah* teaches that the four *parshiyos* of *tefillin* are indispensable to each other and even one missing letter invalidates them. Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav explains that the practical novelty includes the *kotzo shel yud*, and the text records three views of what *kotzo shel yud* means. The *Tiferes Shlomo* connects the missing *yud* in “ענו” by Moshe to Moshe’s humility, teaching that even the smallest letter is critical, and Moshe did not want to claim even that “*yud*” for himself. The *Gemara* then says the *Mishnah* also needs to teach Rav Yehudah’s other rule that a letter must be *mukaf gvil* on all four sides, and without visible separation each letter is not independently valid. The *Tchebiner Rav* in *Dovav Meisharim* חלק א סימן א rules that separation visible only under a microscope is not acceptable because *mukaf gvil* is judged by the naked eye, and Rav Wosner in *Shevet HaLevi* חלק א סימן ז applies the same principle as a *kulah* in infestation checks by limiting obligation to what is seen normally.
- The *Gemara* derives four compartments for *tefillin shel rosh* from the word *totafos* appearing three times with spellings that total four, and Rabbi Akiva derives four from *tat* in *Kaspi* meaning two and *pat* in *Afriki* meaning two. This derivation applies to *tefillin shel rosh* because the verse says “*bein einecha*,” while *tefillin shel yad* has one compartment. The *Perishah* quotes *Hagahos סמ"ק* that the head has four senses—seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting—while the hand has touch, paralleling four compartments versus one. *Tosafos* asks why Rabbi Akiva’s linguistic method does not yield twelve, and answers that *totafos* is a word whose meaning is four each time and also that there are not twelve *parshiyos* about *tefillin* in the Torah. The Rashba explains that the Torah is not using foreign languages but that after “*safah achas*” of *lashon hakodesh*, other languages retained remnants from it and *Chazal* recognized those remnants.
- A teaching from *Tanna d’vei רבי* derives from “*l’zikaron bein einecha*” that there is one *zikaron* rather than multiple, and it instructs writing the four *parshiyos* on four pieces of *klaf* while placing them into four compartments that are formed from one piece of hide. If the *parshiyos* are written on one hide and placed into four compartments without fully separating cuts, the person still fulfills the obligation. Rabbi requires visible spacing between compartments while the Chachamim do not require a large separation, and all agree a thread or cord must separate between each compartment. If the grooves are not clearly noticeable, the *tefillin* remains *kasher*, and the text adds that connecting the *batim* with glue is debated and is not recommended *l’chatchilah*.
- The *braisa* states that *tefillin shel yad* is written on one piece of hide, and if written on four hides and placed into one compartment the person fulfills the obligation, but Rabbi Yehudah requires that the pieces be joined. Rabbi Yehudah bases this on “*v’hayah lecha l’os al yadecha*,” teaching that just as there is one external sign, there should be one internal unit, while Rabbi Yosi says joining is not required. Rabbi Yosi says that Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi agrees that if one lacks *tefillin shel yad* but has two *tefillin shel rosh*, one may cover them with one hide and place them on the hand. The *Gemara* resolves the apparent contradiction by explaining that Rav Yehudah retracted after hearing Rabbi Yosi’s position.
- A report in the name of Rabbi Yochanan permits making *tefillin shel yad* into *tefillin shel rosh* but not the reverse because one ascends in holiness and does not descend. Rashi explains the higher status of *shel rosh* through the *Shem Shaddai* markings with the *shin* and *daled* on the head and only the *yud* on the hand, while other views emphasize the *shin* as an inherent component of *shel rosh* or the public nature of *shel rosh* based on “*v’ra’u kol amei ha’aretz ki shem Hashem nikra alecha*,” contrasted with “*lecha l’os v’lo l’acherim l’os*” for *shel yad*. Rava distinguishes between cases where the item was only in its case versus actually used as *shel rosh*, and the text adds that according to the view that *hazmanah milsa hi* a prior condition can be stipulated to allow transfer. The text records that *poskim* debate whether a condition helps if the *tefillin* was never worn as *shel rosh* and whether it can help after actual use.
- The *Gemara* gives an order: “קדש לי” and “והיה כי יביאך” on the right and “שמע” and “והיה אם שמוע” on the left, and it also brings the opposite, which Abaye resolves by distinguishing the right of the reader from the right of the wearer. Rashi’s order follows the Torah sequence from the wearer’s perspective, while Rabbeinu Tam’s order differs, and the text presents this as a long-standing dispute. The text relates that the Gra did not wear Rabbeinu Tam *tefillin* because many arrangements exist and one does not wear all of them, and it reports a story about ancient *tefillin* found that aligned with Rashi but is explained as not decisive. The text describes the practice of wearing Rabbeinu Tam after Rashi, reciting *Krias Shema* portions while wearing it, and a custom that it is for married *yirei shamayim*, including the teaching attributed to the *Imrei Emes* on “כחתן יכהן פאר.” It records a story that the Chofetz Chaim began wearing Rabbeinu Tam due to a manuscript of *Yerushalmi on Menachos* later identified as a fraud and that he continued once he had started. The text raises *poskim* debates about whether someone who does not wear Rabbeinu Tam may write it as a *sofer* and what to do if one mistakenly recites the *berachah* on Rabbeinu Tam first, and it states that many *poskim* rely on having intent that the *berachah* cover both sets and therefore do not repeat a *berachah* on Rashi afterward.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions