(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 33



(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ruled that writing a Mezuzah on two separate pieces of parchment, half on one, and half on the other - is forbidden.

(b) We learned in a Beraisa 'Kasvah al Sh'nei Dapin Ve'hinichah al Sh'nei Sipin, Pesulah' - implying that if he were to place the two half -Mezuzos on one door-post, it would be Kasher (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(c) To reconcile the Beraisa with Sh'muel, we explain 'bi'Sh'nei Sipin' to mean - 'Re'uyah li'Sh'nei Sipin' (meaning that the Sofer wrote the two half-Mezuzos on one piece of parchment, but so far apart that they could have been affixed to two different door-posts). That would certainly be Kasher on one door-post, is they were written side by side.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that we go after 'Heker Tzir', which Rav Ada interprets as 'Avaksa' - a hole (in this case, the hole in which the door-hinge fits, via which the door opens and closes.

(b) Heker Tzir solves the problem - of two rooms next to each other (e.g. one for guests, and the other, for the house-wife to do her work discreetly), both with doors leading to the street. The problem is - how to determine which is the main room, which in turn, will determine on which side of the inter-joining doorway to affix the Mezuzah.

(c) Heker Tzir solves it - inasmuch as on whichever side of the doorway (the room to which it is nearest) the hole for the hinge is fixed, that is the main-room.

(d) When the Resh Galusa asked Rav Nachman to fix Mezuzos on the door-posts, before the latter were put in place, - he instructed him to first put up the door-posts, because otherwise, it would be matter of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo Min he'Asuy' (like placing the roof on a Sukah before the Sukah has walls [see also Tosfos DH 'T'li Dasha').

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules - that a Mezuzah that is fixed like a bolt (i.e. horizontally) is Pasul.

(b) When Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he stated that ...

1. ... all the Mezuzos in Rebbi's house - were fixed like bolts.
2. ... the small doorway next to Rebbi's seat in Shul, which allowed Rebbi to arrive in Shul and leave without the people having to stand up respectfully as he walked past.
(c) To reconcile Rav's current ruling with Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef's testimony, we establish the latter 'ke'Istevira' - which means 'like an ankle.

(d) Besides 'vertical like an ankle', this might also mean in a bent position with the top vertical and the bottom horizontal, like an ankle and a foot. According to the first explanation however, it appears that bolts can be placed vertically as well as horizontally. It is not then clear, why the Gemara did not simply say so.

(a) Rebbi's Shul door did not have a Mezuzah, Rav Huna's did - because most people used that door to gain entry into the Shul (see also Tosfos DH 've'Ha').

(b) This is based on a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who said 'bi'Mezuzah Halach Achar ha'Ragil', by which he meant that if a person has two doorways to the same room, then we go after the one that he uses the most (to determine which one is Chayav a Mezuzah. The other one is Patur).

(a) Rav Zeira ... Amar Shmuel rules - that it is a Mitzvah to fix the Mezuzah at the beginning of the top third of the door-post.

(b) According to Rav Huna - one may fix it anywhere but for the top and bottom Tefach.

(c) Rav Huna conforms with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi there, based on the Hekesh "u'Keshartam" "u'Chesavtam" - requires it to be fixed on top right next to the ceiling, like Tefilin.

(d) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan reconciles Shmuel with Rebbi Yossi - by establishing the beginning of the top third as the furthest point that one may fix it. Lechatchilah, it should be at the top (see also Tosfos DH 'u'Mai' [though it is not then clear why Shmuel uses the word 'Mitzvah']).




(a) We already cited Rava, who requires the Mezuzah to be placed on the Tefach closest to the street. According to the Rabbanan, this is in order to see the Mezuzah as soon as one arrives home. Rav Chanina from Sura says - that it is in order to increase the area of protection to its maximum.

(b) Rebbi Chanina - points out the difference between a human king, who sits in his palace whilst his servants guard him from the outside, and Hashem, whose His servants sit at home, whilst He protects them from the outside.

(c) The Pasuk he quotes to support this is - 'Hashem Shomrecha, Hashem Tzilcha al-Yad Yeminecha" (Tehilim).

(a) Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rava permits the Mezuzah to be - up to a Tefach deep inside the door-post.

(b) The Beraisa says that if someone places the Mezuzah deep inside the door-post, or who fixes the Mezuzah in a cavity in the door-post and then places a brick in front of the Mezuzah (to fill in the cavity) - he will not need to affix another Mezuzah provided there remains less than a Tefach between the Mezuzah and the surface.

(c) In order to reject the proof for Rava from there, we establish the Beraisa by 'Pesach she'Achorei ha'Deles' - which means that the door-post serves two adjacent entrances (e.g. one on the south side of the room, the other, on the west. Consequently, the reason that more than a Tefach deep is Pasul, is purely because it is considered part of the other room, otherwise, the one Mezuzah would serve both rooms (see Shitah Mekubezes 3 and Tzon Kodshim). If however, there was no second room, it may well be Kasher.

(d) It might also refer to the two entrances of a wealthy man's house - meaning a small doorway next to the gate, which the owner sometimes uses to avoid having to open the large gate. If the door-post between them is a Tefach thick, it renders the small doorway Chashuv, and it then requires an independent Mezuzah, otherwise it is Bateil to the main gate (see Shitah Mekubetzes 3).

(a) We query this explanation however, based on the continuation of the Beraisa - which specifically mentions the case of 'Pesach she'Achorei ha'Deles' - insinuating that the Reisha is not talking about that case.

(b) To resolve this problem - we explain that the Seifa comes to explain the Reisha (as if the Tana had said 'Keitzad').

(c) If a door-post consists of a bunch of canes - the Beraisa permits the owner to cut one of them, and place the Mezuzah inside the hollow.

(d) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava requires the owner - to put up the door-post before placing the Mezuzah, to avoid the P'sul of 'Ta'aseh ve'Lo min he'Asuy'.

(a) Rava exempts Pischi Shima'i from a Mezuzah. Rav Richumi and Aba Yossi argue over what this means. One says that it means 'de'Leis Lehu Tikra'; the other, 'Leis Lehu Shikfi'. If the former means that it does not have a lintel, then the latter means

(b) If on the other hand, the latter means that there is no lintel, then the former will mean - that there is no ceiling.

(c) An Achsadra is - a porch, with three basic sides (the fourth side is open, except perhaps, for the top, which has a narrow wall to support the ceiling).

(d) The problem with Rabah bar Shiloh Amar Rav Chisda, who exempts an Achsadra from a Mezuzah because its entrance has no door-post - lies in the inference, that if it did have a door-post, it would be Chayav, whereas in fact, it too, would be Patur, seeing as the door-post is made (not as a door-way, but) to support the ceiling.

(a) So we amend Rav Chisda's statement to read - that is Patur, even if it has door-posts.

(b) Abaye claimed that the Ispelida de'Bei Mar had no Mezuzah. By 'Ispelida de'Bei Mar', he meant - Rabah's Achsadra.

(c) The Beraisa obligates fixing a Mezuzah on a Beis-Sha'ar, Achsadra and Mirpeset. A Beis Sha'ar is - a guard-hut leading from one domain to another (see Tosfos DH 'Achsadra').

(d) We reject the suggestion that the Tana is referring to 'Achsadra de'Bei Rav' - (a porch with four walls, which do not reach the ceiling), on the grounds that it is no different than any other room, in which case the Tana would not be teaching us anything.

(e) So we establish the Beraisa by an Achsadra Rumisa - which is a porch with very low walls.

(a) Rachbah Amar Rav Yehudah requires two Mezuzos for Bei Harziki, which Rav Papa Saba in the name of Rav explains - as a Beis-Sha'ar that opens into a house on one side and into a courtyard on the other.

(b) Rav Yehudah is coming to teach us - that even the Beis-Sha'ar is not Batel to the house, and that it therefore requires Mezuzos in its own right.

(c) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules that a Beis Sha'ar that opens into a garden on one side and a Kitonis (a sun-porch) on the other has the Din of a Kitonis. The Chachamim - consider it as if it was open air ...

(d) ... and is therefore Patur from Mezuzah; whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, it is Chayav.

(a) Rav and Shmuel qualify the Machlokes, confining it to the entrance 'mi'Bayis le'Ginah'. Regarding the entrance 'mi'Ginah le'Bayis' they say - both opinions agree that it requires a Mezuzah.

(b) They might be referring literally to the door that leads from the garden to the Beis-Sha'ar, in which case 'mi'Bayis le'Ginah' will mean - the door that leads from the Kitonis to the Beis-Sha'ar (and it is described in this way - because one enters the Beis-Sha'ar via it to get to the garden.

(c) 'mi'Ginah le'Bayis' might also mean - the door leading from the Beis-Sha'ar to the Kitonis; and 'mi'Bayis le'Ginah' - the door from the Beis-Sha'ar to the garden.

(a) Alternatively, Rav and Shmuel are talking about Heker Tzir (which we discussed on the previous Amud). In fact, both Tana'im agree that regarding the door leading from the garden to the Beis-Sha'ar, we go after 'Heker Tzir', to require a Mezuzah if the hinge is on the side of the Beis-Sha'ar, their Machlokes regarding the door leading from the Kitonis to the Beis-Sha'ar, if the Heker Tzir is on the side of the garden is - whether we consider the entry into the Beis-Sha'ar an independent entry (Rebbi Yossi), or only as a means to enter the garden (the Chachamim).

(b) Despite the fact that Heker Tzir determines whether a door between a man's room and a woman's room requires a Mezuzah or not, Rebbi Yossi does not go after Heker Tzir in this case - because he holds that the Beis-Sha'ar is made predominantly for the Kitonis (and not for both, as it is in the former case.

(c) Rabah and Rav Yosef argue with Rav and Shmuel. *They* qualify the Machlokes the other way round - in that both Tana'im agree that 'mi'Bayis le'Ginah' is Patur from Mezuzah, and they argue over 'mi'Ginah le'Bayis'.

(d) In their opinion, 'mi'Bayis le'Ginah' is unanimously Patur because it is first and foremost, the entry-point to the garden, and the basis of the Machlokes regarding the door leading from the Kitonis to the Beis-Sha'ar is - whether the main purpose of this door (depending on the previous interpretations) is to gain entry into the Beis-Sha'ar (Rebbi Yossi) or to serve the garden (the Chachamim).

(e) Abaye and Rava rule like Rabah and Rav Yosef. Rav Ashi holds - like Rav and Shmuel.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,