מנחות 32 — Soncino English Talmud

¹leaving a space above and a space below, and leaving [the space between] the sections open. And I said to him, Master, what is the reason for this? And he answered, Because [the portions] are not close to each other in the Torah. And R. Hananel said in the name of Rab that the halachah follows R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Now presumably [the halachah referred to the ruling] of leaving [the space between] the sections open? — No, it referred to the ruling of leaving a space [above and below]. And how much space must there be? — R. Menashya b. Jacob (others say: R. Samuel b. Jacob) said, The space taken up by the clasps of the scribes. Said Abaye to R. Joseph, And do you not hold that Rab's statement [of the halachah] referred to the leaving of the space [above and below]? But is it not the fact that Rab usually relies upon the practice of people, and the general practice is to leave [the space between] the sections closed? For Rabbah said in the name of R. Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah may be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal. R. Joseph, however, reported in the name of R. Kahana who had it from Rab, If Elijah were to come and say that halizah may not be performed with a covered shoe, he would be obeyed; [were he, however, to say] that halizah may not be performed with a sandal, he would not be obeyed, for the people have long ago adopted the practice [of performing it] with a sandal. And it was asked, What is the difference between them? And it was suggested that the practical difference between them was as to whether a covered shoe may be used in the first instance! — We must say therefore [that Rab's statement of the halachah referred] to the leaving of the space; this proves it. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, The precept is to leave [the space between the sections] closed, nevertheless if it was left open it is valid; for when R. Simeon b. Eleazar spoke of ‘leaving the space between the sections open’, he meant, even open. Shall we say that the following supports his view? For it was taught: Similarly, if scrolls of the Law or tefillin had worn out, one may not make out of them a mezuzah, for one may not bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity. Now it follows that if it were permitted to bring down to a lower sanctity one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin or a scroll of the Law]; but how is this possible? Here the portions are closed but there they are open! — Perhaps [it would have been permitted] only to complete [the mezuzah]. And if it were permitted to bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity, [you say that] one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin]? But it has been taught: It is a law handed to Moses at Sinai that the [Scriptural portions in the] tefillin must be written on kelaf and the mezuzah on duksustus. Kelaf is the side [of the skin] next to the flesh, and duksustus is the side next to the hair! — This is only a recommendation. But it was taught: If one did otherwise, it is invalid! — That refers only to the tefillin. But it was taught that if one did otherwise in either case, it is invalid! — The two cases refer to the tefillin only, but in the one case he wrote the portions on that side of kelaf nearest to the hair, and in the other case^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the second passage is begun on a fresh line, leaving blank the rest of the line in which the first passage ended.
^ᵇnote:The two passages of the mezuzah are not consecutive in the Torah, the one comes from Deut. VI, 4-9 and the other from XI, 13-21. The second passage is therefore to be begun on a separate line.
^ᶜnote:Clasps were used by scribes to prevent the sheets of parchment from rolling up.
^ᵈnote:Accordingly Rab would certainly not have ruled that the space between the sections must be left open which is contrary to the general practice. Hence his ruling could only refer to the space to be left above and below.
^ᵉnote:vmhkj lit., ‘drawing off’ sc. the shoe; v. Deut. XXV, 5-9. The adopted practice was for the widow to take off a sandal from the foot of her brother-in-law. There was some doubt, however, whether the ceremony may be performed with a covered shoe instead of a sandal. Cf. Yeb. 102a.
^ᶠnote:According to Rabbah's version it is not right nowadays to use a covered shoe for this ceremony in the first instance when a sandal is available, until there has been a definite ruling by Elijah that it is permitted. On the other hand, according to R. Joseph's version a covered shoe may be used nowadays even though a sandal is available, until we have a ruling to the contrary. It is thus evident that Rab relies upon the practice of the people.
^ᵍnote:But on the question as to whether the space between the sections is to be left open or closed, Rab as usual follows the general practice, which is that it is to be closed.
^ʰnote:Shab. 79b.
^ⁱnote:The mezuzah is deemed to be of a lesser sanctity since it contains only two Scriptural portions, whereas the tefillin contain four.
^ʲnote:For in the scroll of the Law the space after the gna (i.e., Deut. VI, 4-9, the first passage in the mezuzah) is closed, and in the mezuzah it is to be left open. We must therefore say that R. Simeon b. Eleazar meant that it may even be left open, thus supporting R. Nahman's view!
^ᵏnote:I.e., if a word or a line was missing in the mezuzah it would be permitted to patch it up with the same word or the same line cut out from the worn out scroll of the Law or from the tefillin, were it not for the general restriction against lowering the sanctity of a sacred object. But the space between the sections of the mezuzah must in fact be left open.
^ˡnote:Shab. 79b.
^ᵐnote:V. supra p. 202, n. 5.
^ⁿnote:Presumably the expression ‘in either case’ refers to the tefillin and the mezuzah, and we are here taught that any variation, e.g., writing the mezuzah on kelaf or the tefillin on duksustus, renders them invalid.

²he wrote them on that side of duksustus nearest to the flesh. Alternatively I can say that the ruling, ‘If one did otherwise in either case [it is invalid]’, is dependent upon Tannaim. For it was taught: If one did otherwise in either case, it is invalid; R. Ahai declares it valid on the authority of R. Ahai b. R. Hanina (others say, On the authority of R. Jacob b. R. Hanina). Again, if it were permitted to bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity, [you say that] one would be allowed to make [a mezuzah out of tefillin]? But it must be written on ruled lines! For R. Minyomi b. Hilkiah said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria who said it in the name of Rab, A mezuzah that is not written on ruled lines is invalid. Moreover, R. Minyomi b. Hilkiah on his own authority said that [the rule for writing] the mezuzah on ruled lines is a law handed to Moses at Sinai! — Tannaim differ on this point, for it was taught: R. Jeremiah said in the name of our Master: Tefillin and mezuzoth may be written from memory and need not be written on ruled lines. The halachah is: Tefillin need not be written on ruled lines, the mezuzah must be written on ruled lines, and both may be written from memory. What is the reason? — They are well known by heart. R. Helbo said, I once saw R. Huna when he wished to sit down on a couch upon which lay a scroll of the Law, invert a vessel on the ground, place the scroll upon it, and then sit on the couch. For he was of the opinion that it was forbidden to sit on a couch upon which lay a scroll of the Law. This is at variance with the opinion of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah; for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, It is permitted to sit on a bed upon which lies a scroll of the Law. And if someone should whisper in your ear [seeking to contradict you] saying, It is related of R. Eleazar that once, while sitting on his bed, he remembered that a scroll of the Law lay on it, whereupon he slipped off and sat upon the ground, and it appeared as though he had been bitten by a serpent, [answer him that] there the scroll of the Law was actually lying upon the ground. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, If one wrote it like a letter, it is invalid. Why? — Because of the inference that is made by the expression ‘writing’, which is used here [in connection with the mezuzah] and also there in connection with the scroll. Rab Judah also said in the name of Samuel, If one hung it on a stick, it is invalid. Why? Because it must be upon thy gates. A Baraitha has also been taught to this effect: If one hung it on a stick, or attached it [to the wall] behind the door, it is a danger and it is no fulfilment of the precept. The household of King Monobaz used to do so when staying at a hostel, merely in remembrance of the mezuzah. Rab Judah further said in the name of Samuel, The precept is to fix it within the space of the door. Is not this obvious? Does not the Divine Law say, And upon thy gates? — I might have thought that, since Raba stated that the [proper performance of the] precept is to fix it^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵒnote:And in either case it is invalid, for the Scriptural portions of the tefillin must be written only on the internal side of kelaf, i.e., the side nearest to the flesh, and any variation would render invalid. On the other hand the mezuzah may be written on any kind of parchment, kelaf or duksustus.
^ᵖnote:I.e., both as regards the tefillin and the mezuzah.
^ᵠnote:Whereas the Scriptural portions of the tefillin are not written on ruled lines, so that the portions of the tefillin cannot serve for the mezuzah.
^ʳnote:Rabbi(?)
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘not from the writing’; i.e., without a copy.
^ᵗnote:I.e., the law which was given to Moses at Sinai; so Rashi Meg. 18b.
^ᵘnote:And as an expression of his sorrow for the Scroll that was lying on the ground R. Eleazar also sat down on the ground. Had it, however, been on the bed, he would not have objected to anyone sitting on the same bed.
^ᵛnote:Sc. the mezuzah. And so throughout this passage.
^ʷnote:I.e., it was written without having ruled the lines beforehand and without special care as to the spelling of the words (Rashi).
^ˣnote:In connection with the mezuzah it is written (Deut. VI,9 ): And thou shalt write them, and in connection with the Book of the Law it is written (Ex. XVII, 14): Write this for a memorial in the book; as the latter must be written with accuracy as to spelling and upon ruled lines, so the mezuzah too must be written with accuracy and upon ruled lines. Rashi also suggests the inference from the writing of’ a divorce (lit., ‘a book of divorcement, v. Deut. XXIV, 1), which must also be written with accuracy; but see Tosaf. s.v. vc,f.
^ʸnote:I.e., a stick was fastened to the door-post and the mezuzah was hung on the stick.
^ᶻnote:Deut. VI, 9. It must be upon the actual door-post.
^ᵃᵃnote:For one might easily knock against it (Tosaf.).
^ᵃᵇnote:Since there is no obligation to affix mezuzoth to a temporary abode.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., upon that side of the door-post which faces the door but not upon the side which faces the street or the house within.
^ᵃᵈnote:Deut. VI, 9. It must be fixed on the side where the door shuts, which is on the inside of the framework of the door-post.