Menachos Daf 33 - Hilchos Mezuzah
Summary
- The שיעור on מנחות דף לג centers on הלכות מזוזה and presents a sequence of rulings attributed to רב יהודה אמר שמואל, along with related statements of רב and later אמוראים. The text defines where within the doorway and at what height and depth a מזוזה is placed, addresses invalid formats such as writing on two דפין, and uses היכר ציר and רגיל to decide placement when competing “entrance” directions exist. The narrative also treats special doorframe cases, applies *ta’aseh v’lo min he’asui* to מזוזה installation, and clarifies חיוב or פטור for structures such as אכסדרה, בית שער, and garden-related entryways, concluding with a practical הלכה “לחומרא” like רב ושמואל.
- Doctor David Lander sponsors the שיעור in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום. Rachel and Jeff Rottenberg and family sponsor in commemoration of the fifth יארצייט of Joe Rottenberg, יוסף יצחק בן משה הכהן, with the נוסח תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים. The שיעור begins on דף לב עמוד ב two lines from the end at ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, and it frames the entire דף as one topic: הלכות מזוזה.
- Rav Yehuda בשם Shmuel rules that the מצוה is to place the מזוזה בתוך חללו של פתח. The גמרא rejects the assumption that pushing it farther outward is better simply because another rule prefers the טפח הסמוך לרשות הרבים in a thick wall, and it concludes that the מזוזה still must be within the doorway space rather than outside it.
- Rav Yehuda בשם Shmuel rules that if the מזוזה is written on two דפין it is פסולה. A ברייתא that says כתבה על שני דפין והניחה בשני סיפין פסולה is interpreted as meaning it is פסול when it is written in a way that is ראויה לשני סיפין, not that it becomes valid if placed on one סף. The חתם סופר (תשובה אורח חיים סימן ה) is cited as addressing why the ברייתא is introduced as a challenge to Shmuel when it must in any case mean ראויה לשני סיפין, and the בית הלוי is cited as explaining a הוה אמינא that שני סיפין could mean two doorposts on the same side within a very thick wall.
- The text states that ביתך is read as ביאתך and the מזוזה is placed on the right side in the direction of entering, not exiting, and that the direction the exterior door opens is irrelevant for that rule. It then gives a hierarchy for interior doors, placing the מזוזה toward the room that is considered the primary entrance direction, including the criterion of which room is further in or more significant in use. When two rooms are otherwise equal, Rav Yehuda בשם Shmuel rules that in מזוזה one follows היכר ציר, defined by Rav Ada as the hinge-hole mechanism, so the direction the door swings identifies which side is deemed the entrance for placement.
- The ריש גלותא asks Rav Nachman to establish a מזוזה, and Rav Nachman replies that the door must be hung first. רש״י explains this as an application of *ta’aseh v’lo min he’asui* learned from ציצית, requiring that the מזוזה be affixed only after the doorway exists as a חיוב. תוספות explains that the story continues the היכר ציר rule and that Rav Nachman needs the door installed to determine the hinge direction and therefore the proper side. The רמב״ם is quoted as holding that a house is only חייב in מזוזה if it has doors, and the ראש is cited as attributing that reading to this line, alongside an anecdote about רב חיים בריסקר that is presented as a joke illustrating that view.
- Rav Yehuda בשם Rav rules that if the מזוזה is made כמין נגר it is פסולה, with רש״י reading this as horizontal placement, and explanations are attributed to רבינו יונתן, רבינו תם, and מתנות יום טוב about whether the issue is *derekh kavod* or a *halakhah l’Moshe mi’Sinai*. A report by Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef says all the מזוזות in רבי’s house were כמין נגר, and the גמרא distinguishes between configurations described as כסיכסא versus כאיסטווירא. The text presents the dispute between רש״י and רבינו תם on which orientation is considered פסול and ties the common practice of placing the מזוזה on a slant to that dispute, citing תוספות that both views can be read as involving a slanted placement depending on what is assumed to be the baseline orientation.
- The text reports that the doorway רבי used to enter the בית מדרש had no מזוזה, and it contrasts this with a doorway Rav Huna used that did have a מזוזה. The גמרא explains that the חיוב follows רגיל, citing Rav Yehuda בשם Rav that one places a מזוזה at the entrance most commonly used. רש״י understands this to mean that when one entrance is used by the public and another by only one person, the latter may be exempt, while תוספות and the רא״ש explain that a בית מדרש is פטור from מזוזה and distinguish the cases by whether the doorway is fundamentally a בית doorway or a בית מדרש doorway. The ירושלמי is cited about רבי חנינא placing a מזוזה on a בית מדרש, and the בית יוסף is cited as adopting a practice to place one but without a ברכה.
- Shmuel (via Rav Zeira בשם Rav Matna) states that the מצוה is to place the מזוזה at the beginning of the top third of the doorway. Rav Huna allows placement anywhere except within a טפח of the floor and a טפח of the lintel, aligning him with רבי יהודה in a ברייתא, while רבי יוסי derives from תפילין that placement must be high. The גמרא resolves Shmuel as consistent with רבי יוסי by reading “תחילת שליש העליון” as the lowest acceptable boundary so that it is not distanced more than a third from the top. The ראש is cited as allowing לכתחילה anywhere in the top third up to the משקוף without requiring a טפח gap, נקודות הכסף is cited as endorsing placing it in the top third לכתחילה, and the רמב״ם is cited as requiring לכתחילה specifically the beginning of the top third while validating higher placement בדיעבד; the בית יוסף is cited as explaining a preference not to place it flush at the very top by analogy to תפילין placement. The text states that placing higher is certainly כשר, while placing lower may not be כשר, and it describes the practice of measuring the doorway to locate the start of the top third.
- Rava states that the מצוה is to place the מזוזה in the טפח סמוך לרשות הרבים. The רבנן give the reason that one should encounter it immediately, while Rav Chanina of Sura gives the reason of protection, and רבי חנינא frames this as showing that unlike a human king guarded from outside while inside, Hashem guards His servants from outside while they sit inside, citing השם שומרך השם צלך על יד ימינך and the continuation of the psalm. The מהרש״א is cited explaining this protection in relation to חמה, לבנה, and מזלות and the phrase אין מזל לישראל, connecting the protection to both being inside and also to guarding צאתך ובואך.
- Rav Yosef the son of Rava בשם Rava rules that if one recesses the מזוזה a טפח it is פסולה. The ב״ח explains this as requiring placement where the door closes, while the לבוש explains from the language על מזוזות rather than תוך מזוזות. A suggested support from a ברייתא about placing it in the משקוף area or covering it with a מלבן is rejected as referring to a case of פתח שאחורי הדלת, and the גמרא elaborates with a case of a מלבן של קנים where one cuts a שפורפרת and inserts the מזוזה.
- Rav Acha the son of Rava limits the permissibility of inserting a מזוזה into a cut tube to a case where the doorway is erected first and only afterward cut and filled. The text rules that if the tube is cut and filled before being set as a doorway and only afterward erected, it is פסולה as a violation of *ta’aseh v’lo min he’asui*, because the מזוזה is placed before the חיוב exists.
- Rava rules that פתחי שימאי are exempt from מזוזה. The text presents a dispute between Rav Ruhumi and Abaye, with one defining the defect as lacking a תקרה or משקוף and the other defining it as lacking proper straight שקופי, with protruding or irregular sides that do not form a standard doorway.
- Bar Shela בשם Rav Chisda rules that an אכסדרה is פטורה מן המזוזה because it has no פצימין, and the גמרא clarifies that even if it has posts they may be merely for חיזוק תקרה and still exempt. Abaye reports seeing Ravah’s *isplidei* with posts but no מזוזה because they are treated as structural supports. A ברייתא obligating בית שער, אכסדרה, and מרפסת is reconciled by identifying a different type, אכסדרה דבי רב, and then refining it to אכסדרה רומיתא made of windows, with the חידוש that it is still חייב במזוזה.
- Rechava בשם Rav Yehuda states that בי ארזיקי is חייב בשתי מזוזות. Rav Papa בשם Rava explains this as a בית שער open to a חצר with houses opening to the בית שער, requiring a מזוזה both from the outside into the entry space and from the entry space into the house.
- A ברייתא teaches that a בית שער opening to a גינה on one side and a קיטונית on the other is judged either like the kitanit according to רבי יוסי or like the gatehouse according to חכמים. Rav and Shmuel state that when the direction is from the גינה to the בית, all agree it is חייב because it is ביאה דבית, and they locate the dispute in the opposite direction from house to garden. Rabba and Rav Yosef reverse the framework, stating that from house to garden all agree it is פטור because it is a doorway of the garden, and they locate the dispute when the hinge direction indicates entry from garden to house, depending on whether it is primarily for the house or entirely for the garden. Abaye and Rava follow Rabba and Rav Yosef, while Rav Ashi follows Rav and Shmuel לחומרא, and the final ruling is stated as והלכתא כרב ושמואל לחומרא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions