Parallel
מנחות 33:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for by ‘the beginning of the upper third’ he meant that as the furthest point, for one should not fix it lower than a third of the door-post away from the lintel. Raba said, The proper performance of the precept is to fix it in the handbreadth nearest to the street. Why? — The Rabbis say, So that one should encounter a precept immediately [on one's return home]; R. Hanina of Sura says, So that it should protect the entire house. R. Hanina said, Come and see how the character of the Holy One, blessed be He, differs from that [of men] of flesh and blood. According to human standards, the king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him from without; but with the Holy One, blessed be He, it is not so, for it is His servants that dwell within and He keeps guard over them from without; as it is said, The Lord is thy keeper; the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand. R. Joseph the son of Raba stated in his discourse in the name of Raba, If one set it deep in the door-post, to the depth of a handbreadth, it is invalid. Shall we say that the following Baraitha supports him? For it was taught: If one set it in the post [of the door] or if one added another frame, and there was the depth of a handbreadth, another mezuzah is necessary, but if less, no other mezuzah is necessary! — That [first clause of the Baraitha] refers to a door behind a door. But this is expressly stated further on, [thus,] If there was a door behind a door and there was a depth of a handbreadth, another mezuzah is necessary, but if less, no other mezuzah is necessary! — This is merely stated as illustrating [the cases mentioned]. A Tanna taught: If a man set up a door-frame of [hollow] reeds, he may cut away a length of reed and place [the mezuzah in the hollow]. R. Aha the son of Raba said, This was taught only if he first set up the door-frame and then cut away a length of reed and placed [the mezuzah] therein; but if he first cut away a length [of the reed] and placed therein [the mezuzah] and then set up [the whole as a door-frame], it is invalid, because of the principle ‘Thou shalt make, but not [use] what is ready made’. Raba also said, Faulty doors are exempt from mezuzah. What is meant by ‘faulty doors’? — In this R. Rehumai and Abba Jose differ; one says, Those that have no upper beam; and the other says, Those that have no side-posts. R. Hisda said, An exedra is exempt from mezuzah, since it has no door-posts. It follows, however, that if it had door-posts it would require a mezuzah, but surely [the posts] were made only as supports for the ceiling! — He meant to say this: even though it has door-posts it is exempt, for they were made only as supports for the ceiling. Abaye said, I have seen that the halls in the Master's house, although they have posts, have no mezuzoth. Obviously he was of the opinion that they serve only as supports for the ceiling. An objection was raised: A lodge, an exedra, and a balcony, each requires a mezuzah! — The reference here is to the exedra of a school-house. But the exedra of a school-house is a proper room, is it not? — We must say that the reference is to a Roman exedra. Rehabah said in the name of Rab Judah, An entrance-lodge requires two mezuzoth. What is meant by ‘an entrance-lodge’? — R. Papa the Elder said in the name of Rab, It is a lodge, with one door opening on to the courtyard and another leading to the dwelling-houses. Our Rabbis taught: A lodge which leads into a garden and thence into an outhouse is, according to R. Jose, considered as the outhouse. But the Sages say, It is considered as the air space [of the garden]. Rab and Samuel both said, If the door opens from the garden into the house, there is no dispute at all that it requires a mezuzah, since it clearly admits into the house; they differ only where the door opens from the house into the garden, the one maintaining that the outhouse is the main thing, the other that the garden is the main thing. But Rabbah and R. Joseph both said, If the door opens from the house into the garden there is no dispute at all that it is exempt, since it is clearly the door for the garden; they differ only where the door opens from the garden into the house, the one maintaining that it serves for entering into the house, the other that it was entirely
—