Menachos 33
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Menachot 33, learned *le’iluy nishmat* ר' יחזקאל בן רב נפתלי זכרונו לברכה, ר' חצקל בסר, and it continues the *sugya* of *mezuzah* with practical placement laws. Shmuel rules that a *mezuzah* written on two *dafim* is invalid, and the *Gemara* explains that even being fit to be placed in two separate holders disqualifies it. The *Gemara* then establishes that determining the “right side” for a doorway follows the *heker tzir* (hinge side), addresses invalid placement “like a bolt,” and presents the major dispute of Rashi versus Rabbeinu Tam about vertical versus horizontal placement, with the Shulchan Aruch and Rema shaping practice. It also lays out where on the height and width of the doorway the *mezuzah* should be placed, emphasizes *mezuzah* as *shemirah* alongside being a *mitzvah*, and applies these rules to unusual doorways, *batei midrash*, gates, porticos, and multi-entrance structures, including how frequent use affects obligation and how multiple doors can require multiple *mezuzot*.
- Today’s learning is dedicated לעילוי נשמת ר' יחזקאל בן רב נפתלי זכרונו לברכה, ר' חצקל בסר, whose יארצייט is today. He is described as a tremendous כח in making *daf yomi* what it became, בפרט in the United States of America. The learning of today’s *daf* and the worldwide learning of *daf yomi* are presented as a זכות and an עליה for his נשמה.
- Shmuel says that if someone writes the two *parshiyot* of the *mezuzah* on two *dafim*, the *mezuzah* is invalid. Tosafot understand this literally as two separate parchments for שמע and והיה אם שמוע, while Rashi understands it as one parchment written in two columns such that it is effectively separable into two *dafim*. A *beraita* about writing on two *dafim* and placing them in two separate holders on two sides of the doorway is answered by saying the disqualification is that it is ראויה לשני סיפין, because a *mezuzah* must be written על דף אחד and not on two *dafim*.
- Shmuel rules that placement follows the *heker tzir*, defined by Rav Ada Avkasa as the hinges. The hinges identify which side is “inside,” and the *mezuzah* is placed on the right when entering the side with the hinges. The *Gemara* illustrates this with a doorway between two parts of a house, described as between בי גברי and בי נשי, where each side also has access to רשות הרבים, and the hinge side determines the correct placement.
- In the story of the house of the ריש גלותא, Rav Nachman is asked to affix *mezuzot* and responds, תלו דשי ברישא. Tosafot explain that Rav Nachman requires the doors to be installed first so the hinge side can be identified and the *mezuzah* placed correctly based on *heker tzir*. Rashi gives a different explanation, but the narrative emphasizes that the hinge location is necessary for determining placement.
- Rav rules that if the *mezuzah* is affixed like a נגר it is invalid, and Rashi explains this as horizontal placement. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef reports that the *mezuzot* in Rabbi’s house were made כמין נגר, and the *Gemara* resolves this by distinguishing between a horizontal form and a vertical form, validating Rabbi’s practice as vertical while invalidating horizontal. Rabbeinu Tam, cited by Tosafot, interprets the *sugya* in the opposite direction, holding vertical invalid and horizontal valid. The Shulchan Aruch rules like Rashi that it must be זקופה, and the Rema records the opposite view and says the meticulous place it בשיפוע ובאלכסון to satisfy both, while the Vilna Gaon rules definitively like Rashi and in מעשה רב is described as placing it straight and not slanted. Rabbeinu Tam supports horizontal placement by citing the לוחות and a ספר תורה in the ארון lying flat, and the Mordechai reports Rabbeinu Tam wished to build an ארון large enough for ספרי תורה to lie horizontally.
- Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef also reports that a doorway Rabbi used to enter the בית מדרש had no *mezuzah*, and the *Gemara* challenges this from a doorway Rav Huna used that did have one. The *Gemara* answers that Rav Huna’s door was רגיל and Rabbi’s was not, and Rav states that in *mezuzah* one follows the door that is regularly used. Rashi and Tosafot disagree whether the door is the בית מדרש entrance itself or a door from Rabbi’s house leading toward the בית מדרש, and Tosafot resist reading it as the בית מדרש entrance because the Bavli in Yoma presents a dispute about בית הכנסת without residence. The Yerushalmi is cited to distinguish between בית הכנסת and בית המדרש, stating that בית המדרש requires a *mezuzah*, and the explanation given is that תלמידים spend the entire day there and it is דומה לדירה. The Shulchan Aruch is cited that a בית הכנסת is obligated only if someone lives there, while regarding בית המדרש it records exemption with an opinion obligating it, and the Shach explains obligation because תלמידים sit there from morning to night and it resembles dwelling. The *Gemara* in Megillah is cited that מאי בי רבנן? ביתא דרבנן, and Rashi explains that בתי מדרשות are called בי רבנן because it is their house לכל דבר.
- Shmuel, via Rav Matna, says the *mitzvah* is to place it בתחלת שליש העליון. Rav Huna says it must be at least a *tefach* above the ground and a *tefach* below the lintel, and that the rest of the doorway is valid. A *beraita* frames this as a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, who allows anywhere except the top and bottom *tefachim*, and Rabbi Yosi, who derives “height” from וקשרתם וכתבתם and requires it in the upper area like *tefillin*. The *Gemara* reconciles Shmuel with Rabbi Yosi by interpreting “top” as the top third, and interpreting Shmuel’s phrase as meaning it should not be lower than the top third rather than requiring exact placement at its beginning. The Rambam is described as ruling that it is בתחלת שליש העליון, and the Shach in נקודות הכסף challenges this as reflecting the *hava amina* rather than the *maskana*, attributing it to a different *girsa* and noting that מנהג ישראל follows the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling of בתחילה שליש עליון.
- Rava rules that the *mezuzah* should be placed in the *tefach* closest to רשות הרבים. The Rabbis explain this so one encounters it immediately upon entering, while Rav Chanina of Sura explains it so it can guard the entrance, presenting *mezuzah* as *shemirah*. Rav Chanina says, בוא וראה שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם, because a human king is guarded from outside while Hashem guards His servants from outside, citing ה' שומרך ה' צלך על יד ימינך. The longer narrative in Avodah Zarah is brought where Onkelos bar Klonimos converts, Roman soldiers are sent after him, and he teaches them that Hashem “holds the torch” for Israel and that Hashem guards from outside through the *mezuzah*, leading them to convert and ending the pursuit. The *shemirah* aspect is applied in *halachah* by stating that a renter must provide *mezuzot* because *mezuzah* is חובת הדר, and women are obligated because they also need protection, as explained in Berachot and Rashi. The סמיכות in והיה אם שמוע between וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך and למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם is cited from the Or HaChaim as linking *mezuzah* to אריכות ימים through protection from מזיקין.
- Rav Yosef son of Rava says in the name of Rava that if the *mezuzah* is embedded a *tefach* into the wall it is invalid. A *beraita* about placing it in doorposts or covering it with a brick and the measure of a *tefach* is rejected as support because it is reinterpreted as dealing with a פתח שאחורי הדלת. Rashi explains this as a corner configuration where one corner serves as a shared post for two adjacent doorways, and the measure of a *tefach* determines whether the corner functions as an independent post requiring two *mezuzot* or whether one *mezuzah* suffices.
- A *beraita* permits a doorpost made of reeds by cutting a tube and inserting the *mezuzah* inside. Rav Acha son of Rava limits this to a case where the structure is erected first and only afterward is the reed cut and the *mezuzah* inserted. If one inserts the *mezuzah* first and only afterward erects the doorway, it is invalid משום תעשה ולא מן העשוי, because the *mezuzah* must be affixed after the obligation exists.
- Rava states that deformed entrances called פתחי שמאי are exempt from *mezuzah*, and Rav Ruchumi and Abaye dispute whether this refers to lacking a roof or lacking doorposts. Rav Chisda rules that an אכסדרה is exempt, and the *Gemara* concludes that even if it has posts it can still be exempt because the posts are made only to strengthen the roof rather than to serve as doorposts. Abaye observes that Rava’s structure has posts without a *mezuzah*, and the explanation is that they are for roof support. A *beraita* obligating בית שער אכסדרה ומרפסת is answered by limiting it to אכסדרה דבי רב, first described as having four walls but not fully enclosed upward, and then refined as an אכסדרה רומיתא with large windows that creates a *chiddush* in obligation.
- Rav Yehuda says that בי הרזיקי requires two *mezuzot*, and Rav Pappa Sava בשם רב identifies it as a בית שער that opens to a courtyard and to houses, obligating both doorways. A *beraita* presents a בית שער opening to a גינה and to a קיטונית, with Rabbi Yosi judging it like the קיטונית and the Sages judging it like the גינה or like open air, and Rashi’s preferred interpretation makes the dispute about the doorway to the garden. Rav and Shmuel say that when the hinge side indicates entry toward the house everyone obligates, and the dispute is when the hinge side indicates the garden, with Rabbi Yosi treating the room as primary and the Sages treating the garden as primary. Rabbah and Rav Yosef reverse the axis of agreement and dispute, and later practice is stated as following Rabbi Yosi and adopting Rav and Shmuel לחומרא through Rav Ashi. The hinge principle here is presented not only as determining which side is “right,” but also as determining whether the doorway is fundamentally toward an area that is obligated or toward an area like a garden that is exempt.
- In the case of a לול connecting a house and an upper story, Rav Huna rules that one opening requires one *mezuzah* and two openings require two *mezuzot*. Rav Pappa infers that a room with four entrances requires four *mezuzot*, and the *Gemara* clarifies that this holds even if one entrance is the one regularly used. A tension is raised with the earlier principle of following the regularly used doorway, and Rashi is cited as resolving that one doorway can be subordinate to another when there are two, but not when there are four, so multiple entrances create multiple independent obligations.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions