Menachos 34
Summary
- The text learns through מנחות דף ל״ד עמוד א׳ in the closing סוגיות of מזוזה and then begins the transition on דף ל״ד עמוד ב׳ to תפילין, establishing that a doorway can be חייב במזוזה even without conventional doorposts when the walls themselves function as the *mezuzot*, and that the מזוזה is placed on the right side based on דרשות of ביתך as דרך ביאתך. The narrative brings a case of a one-sided doorway and frames רב פפא’s protest that even a view allowing one *mezuzah* requires it specifically on the right, then records תנאיים who argue whether one doorpost creates חיוב and how “מזוזות” can still yield one מזוזה. It then derives that a מזוזה is written on a *sefer* (on קלף) with ink rather than on stones, and develops conceptual explanations for why the תורה says וכתבתם by מזוזה more explicitly than by תפילין and why the רמב״ם requires עיבוד לשמה for תפילין and ספר תורה but not for מזוזה. The text ends by opening the תפילין sugya: four פרשיות are indispensable, letter-shapes and separation matter, and the construction of של ראש versus של יד differs in batim, *klafim*, and rules of upgrading or downgrading קדושה.
- Amimar rules that a corner opening created by removing a room’s corner is חייב במזוזה even though it was not built as a formal entrance and has no standard doorposts. Rav Ashi challenges that the פסוק says וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך and asks how there can be a חיוב without *p’tzimin*. Amimar answers עדי פצימי and states that the sides of the walls that form the opening themselves are the *mezuzot*, so a צורת הפתח can create liability even without separate doorposts.
- Rav Pappa visits the house of Mar Shmuel and sees a doorway with only one doorpost on the left side, and he is startled that the מזוזה is placed on the left. Rav Pappa suggests that this follows רבי מאיר, who holds that one doorpost can obligate a מזוזה, but he insists that even רבי מאיר only validates one doorpost when it is on the right side, not on the left. Rashi explains that the configuration places the door at the corner so that the wall-edge cannot serve as a doorpost, leaving literally one post and nothing on the right, which is why Rav Pappa protests the חיוב and placement.
- A ברייתא derives from ביתך that ביאתך מן הימין and asks whether the placement might be on the left, concluding again from ביתך. Rava explains the דרשה as דרך ביאתך, reading ביתך as ביאתך and tying the right side to the fact that a person moves his right foot first. Rav Shmואל בר אחא in front of Rav Pappa בשם עולא derives “דרך ביאתך מימין” from the פסוק about יהוידע הכהן placing the chest מימין בבוא איש בית ה׳.
- The מחבר rules that the מזוזה is placed on the right side even for an איטר. The Shach explains that even if one might think an איטר should differ, others live in the home and even if not, בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם, עיין שם בש״ך. R’ עקיבא איגר argues that the presumed הוה אמינא is not about a left-handed person like תפילין’s ידכה logic, but about an איטר רגל whose left foot leads, so one might have thought דרך ביאתך would shift, and the חידוש is that it does not.
- A ברייתא states that a house with only one *p’tzam* is חייב במזוזה according to רבי מאיר and פטור according to חכמים. The רבנן base their view on מזוזות כתיב as a plural implying two doorposts. רבי מאיר’s חיוב is aligned with earlier תנאיים: רבי ישמעאל derives that repeating “מזוזות” in the second paragraph is ריבוי אחר ריבוי ואין ריבוי אחר ריבוי אלא למעט, yielding מזוזה אחת, and רבי עקיבא derives from פסח מצרים’s phrase על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות that only when the תורה specifies “שתי” does it mean two, while “מזוזות” alone can mean one.
- A ברייתא reads וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך and proposes writing directly on stones, then derives via a *gezerah shavah* of כתיבה from וכתב לה ספר כריתות that it is written על הספר. The Gemara considers learning instead from וכתבת על האבנים but prefers כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות from כתיבה הנוהגת לדורות, so it learns from גט rather than the stones at the Jordan. The text adds that writing on a *sefer* implies writing בדיו, based on ואני כותב על הספר בדיו.
- Rav Acha brei d’Rava challenges Rav Ashi that the פסוק says על מזוזות and a *gezerah shavah* should not uproot the straightforward meaning. Rav Ashi answers from וכתבתם as כתיבה תמה, meaning a durable writing that is then placed on the *mezuzah*, implying it is not written directly on the doorpost. The Gemara then asks why the *gezerah shavah* is needed if וכתבתם already teaches כתיבה תמה, and answers that without the *gezerah shavah* one could think to engrave durable writing in stone and then affix it, so both דרשות together exclude writing on stones and fix the requirement of writing on קלף and placing it on the doorpost.
- The Brisker Rav in ספר על התורה in פרשת ואתחנן asks why the תורה emphasizes וקשרתם regarding תפילין without an explicit command to write, while it emphasizes וכתבתם regarding מזוזה even though the מצוה is fulfilled by קביעה. The text brings a תירוץ from חבצלת השרון and from רב איסר זלמן מלצר in אבן האזל that the רמב״ם requires עיבוד לשמה for תפילין and ספר תורה but not for מזוזה, and the חכמי לוניל asked the רמב״ם about this and received his answer that תפילין וספר תורה are חובת הגוף while מזוזה is חובת הבית. Rav איסר זלמן explains that the תורה’s פשוטו frames מזוזה as וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך, so the קלף functions as the means to realize writing “on the house,” making the קלף טפל and not the essential locus of the קיום, which is why עיבוד לשמה is not required for מזוזה as it is for תפילין and ספר תורה where the כתיבה’s endgame is on the קלף.
- The text cites מנחות דף מ״ג עמוד ב׳ where דוד המלך in a בית המרחץ fears being ערום מן המצוות until he sees his ברית מילה and regains composure. The מגן אברהם in הלכות ציצית סימן כ״ב quotes the Ari’s question why דוד was not afraid every night, answers that the Ari held he slept in ציצית and ודבריו דברי קבלה, yet the מגן אברהם proposes that at night דוד had protection because על כל פנים הוה לה מזוזה בפתחו. R’ עקיבא איגר in תשובה infers from the מגן אברהם that the מצוה and protection of מזוזה apply while one is in the house with the מזוזה, and he raises the further question whether returning home repeatedly would generate a recurring חיוב and perhaps a ברכה, concluding צריך עיון לדינא.
- Tosafot in פרק הכונס in מסכת בבא קמא argues that עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה applies only when one is actively engaged, and rejects the notion that one would be exempt merely because “כל אדם שיש לו תפילין בראשו וציצית בבגדו ומזוזה בפתחו,” implying that having a מזוזה בפתחו is itself treated as a continuing מצוה-state. The מנחת חינוך in מצוה תכ״ג treats the absence of מזוזה as ביטול עשה בכל רגע ורגע and uses this to question whether the limit of המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש applies, analogizing to the ר״ן in יומא who prefers one act of שחיטה on שבת over repeated איסורי נבילה because repeated violations weigh more heavily. The text frames this as support for viewing מזוזה not as a one-time installation alone but as a מצוה with ongoing halachic consequences tied to continuous presence or absence.
- The text states that תפילין are mentioned ארבע times in the תורה, yielding four פרשיות in תפילין, while מזוזה contains only שמע and והיה because מזוזה is mentioned twice. The משנה teaches that ארבע פרשיות שבתפילין מעכבות זו את זו and even one missing letter is מעכב, and Rav Yehuda בשם Rav applies the novelty even to a קוצה של יוד. The Gemara connects this to the rule that any letter lacking *gvil mukaf* on all four sides is פסול, so touching letters and missing surrounding parchment invalidate תפילין.
- The text states that של ראש has ארבע בתים and four separate *klafim*, while של יד has one בית and ideally one *klaf*, tied to singular language for the arm and plural language of *totafot* for the head. Rabbi Yishmael derives four from three appearances of לטטפת with חסר חסר מלא counting as one, one, and two, and Rabbi Akiva derives four from “טט” meaning two in *Katfi* and “פת” meaning two in African. A ברייתא teaches that one writes the four פרשיות on four separate hides but places them into four compartments made from one עור based on ולזכרון between עיניך as one זכרון, and it rules that if written on one עור and placed into four compartments it is valid with required spacing according to רבי and without required spacing according to חכמים, while both require a separating thread and visible חריצין.
- A ברייתא teaches that תפילין של יד are ideally written on one עור, but if written on four עורות and placed in one בית it can be valid, with רבי יהודה requiring the sections to be bound together so that just as one אות appears outside, one אות appears inside, while רבי יוסי does not require binding. רבי יוסי states that רבי יהודה ברבי agrees that if one lacks a של יד but has two של ראש, one can cover one of them so it appears as a single unit and use it as a של יד, leading to the inference that רבי יהודה retracted in light of רבי יוסי’s reasoning. The text then cites רב חנניה משמיה דרבי יוחנן that one may turn a של יד into a של ראש but not a של ראש into a של יד because אין מורידין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה, and it resolves the contradiction by distinguishing between עתיקתא and חדתא and by adding that for one who holds הזמנה מלתא, the permissibility depends on making a תנאי at the outset.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions