מנחות 34 — Soncino English Talmud

¹made for the sake of the garden. Abaye and Raba decided in accordance with the views of Rabbah and R. Joseph, whilst R. Ashi decided in accordance with the views of Rab and Samuel, adopting the stricter ruling. And the law is in accordance with the views of Rab and Samuel, adopting the stricter ruling. It was stated: As for a staircase which leads from one room to an upper room, R. Huna said, If it has but one door, it requires one mezuzah only, but if it has two doors, it requires two mezuzoth. R. Papa said, One can learn from R. Huna's dictum that a room that has four doors requires four mezuzoth. Is not this obvious? — It was necessary to be stated even though one [door] was mostly used. Amemar said, A door which is in the corner requires a mezuzah. Thereupon R. Ashi said to Amemar, But it has no posts! — He replied, Here are its posts. R. Papa once came to Mar Samuel's house and saw there a door which had only one door-post, and that on the left side, to which was affixed a mezuzah. He said, Apparently this is in accord with R. Meir, but might not R. Meir have said so only when [the post was] on the right side; did he say so when it was on the left side? What is [your authority for] this? — It was taught: [Upon the doorposts of] thy house: that is, upon the right side as you enter. You say, the right side, but perhaps it is not that but the left side? The verse therefore says, ‘Thy house’. How is this derived [from the verse]? Rabbah explained, ‘As you enter’ implies the right side, for when a man steps [into his house] he steps in with his right foot first. R. Samuel b. Aha quoting Raba b. ‘Ulla derived it in the presence of R. Papa from the following verse: And Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord; and the priests that kept the threshold put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. What is this view of R. Meir? — It was taught: A house that has only one door-post requires a mezuzah according to R. Meir; but the Sages exempt it. What is the reason for the Sages’ view? — Because it is written The door-posts. And what is the reason for R. Meir's view? — It was taught: It is written ‘The door-posts’, and I know that the minimum of ‘door-posts’ is two; since, however, in the second portion the verse also says the doorposts, which is unnecessary, we have then an inclusive term following another inclusive term, and whenever an inclusive term follows another inclusive term its effect is to restrict; Scripture has thus brought down the law to one door-post. This is the argument of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says, This is unnecessary; for it is written, Upon the lintel and on the two side-posts. Now there was no need for Scripture to say. ‘two’; what then does it mean by ‘two’? It lays down the principle that wherever’ ‘door-posts’ are mentioned only one is meant unless the verse expressly says ‘two’. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And thou shalt write them. It is possible to think that this means that one should write [the portion] upon the stones [of the house], therefore it uses the expression ‘writing’ here and the expression ‘writing’ there, and as in the latter case it means upon a scroll so here it means upon a scroll. Or perhaps argue this way: it uses the expression ‘writing’ here and the expression ‘writing’ there, as there it means upon the stones so here it means upon the stones. Let us then see to which [of the two] is this case most similar. We may infer the ‘writing’ which is intended as a precept for all times from the ‘writing’ which is also intended as a precept for all times, but we may not infer the ‘writing’ which is intended as a precept for all times from the ‘writing’ which is not intended as a precept for all times. And [it must be written with ink] as it says elsewhere, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, But the Divine Law says upon the door-posts, and you say we must infer the ‘writing’ here from the ‘writing’ there [that it shall be written on a scroll]! [He replied,] The verse says, ‘And thou shalt write them’, which implies a perfect writing, and then [place it] upon the door-posts. But since then it is written, ‘And thou shalt write them’, wherefore do I need the analogy of the common expressions? — Without the analogy I should have said that one must write it upon a stone and set it up upon the threshold [as the door-post], it therefore teaches us otherwise. OF THE FOUR PORTIONS OF SCRIPTURE IN THE TEFILLIN, THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE INVALIDATES THE OTHERS; INDEED EVEN ONE [IMPERFECT] LETTER CAN INVALIDATE THE WHOLE. Is not this obvious? — Rab Judah answered in the name of Rab, The law had to be taught in respect of the tittle of the letter yod. And is not this, too, obvious? — It was necessary to be taught in respect of the other statement of Rab Judah; for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, Any letter that is not surrounded on all four sides by a margin of parchment is invalid.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:I.e., accepting R. Jose's ruling. So that in all the circumstances stated a mezuzah is necessary.
^ᵇnote:It was usual to place a door at the foot of the staircase or at the top so as to afford privacy to the tenants of the upper and lower floors. Sometimes a door was placed both at the foot and at the top of the staircase.
^ᶜnote:All four doors, nevertheless, must be provided with mezuzoth.
^ᵈnote:I.e., the door was placed in a corner of the room at an angle to each of the adjoining walls (see drawing). According to Asheri the meaning is that the whole of one wall was taken up by the door.
^ᵉnote:The extremities of the two walls to which the door is attached form the door-posts.
^ᶠnote:Who holds that a door which has only one door-post must, nevertheless, have a mezuzah.
^ᵍnote:That the right side only was meant.
^ʰnote:Deut. VI, 9. Heb. l,hc ‘thy house’ is interpreted as l,thc ‘thy entering’.
^ⁱnote:II Kings XII, 10. Hence whatever is to be placed at the entrance of a house must be placed on the right side.
^ʲnote:Deut. ibid. The use of the plural implies a minimum of two.
^ᵏnote:Inscribed in the mezuzah.
^ˡnote:Ibid. XI, 20.
^ᵐnote:For here each expression by itself indicates plurality, and since it is repeated Scripture thereby intimates that the condition of plurality is no longer essential.
^ⁿnote:That a door which has only one door-post requires a mezuzah.
^ᵒnote:Ex. XII, 23.
^ᵖnote:Deut. VI, 9.
^ᵠnote:In the law of a bill of divorce; cf. ibid. XXIV, 1. So Rashi; Tosaf. suggest that the reference is to the scroll used in the case of a woman suspected of adultery, cf. Num. V, 23, or to the Book of the Law written by the king, cf. Deut. XVII, 18.
^ʳnote:With reference to the memorial of stones to be set up by the Israelites when they cross the Jordan, and upon which are to be written all the words of the law; cf. ibid. XXVII, 3ff.,
^ˢnote:The engraving upon the stones was an ordinance for that time only.
^ᵗnote:The mezuzah as well as the bill of divorce and the other cases mentioned above in n. 3.
^ᵘnote:Jer. XXXVI, 18.
^ᵛnote:I.e., actually written upon the wood.
^ʷnote:The Heb. o,c,fu ‘and thou shalt write them’, is interpreted as though divided into two words: o, c,fu meaning, a perfect writing; and this is the case only when writing is applied with ink upon a scroll, for any writing with ink upon wood or stones would be imperfect and indistinct.
^ˣnote:Signifying that the writing must be upon a scroll.
^ʸnote:I.e., one must carve the words upon a stone, which would also be a perfect and distinct writing.
^ᶻnote:V. supra 29a for this identical passage, p. 189 and the notes thereon.

²Our Rabbis taught: It is written, Letotefeth, letotefeth, and letotafoth, making four in all. So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says, There is no need of that interpretation, for ‘tot’ means two in Katpi and ‘foth’ means two in Afriki. Our Rabbis taught: I might have said that one should write [the Scriptural portions] upon four pieces of parchment and put them in four compartments made out of four pieces of leather; the verse therefore says, And for a memorial between thine eyes: one memorial I commanded you, but not two or three memorials. How then should one do? One should write them upon four pieces of parchment and put them in four compartments made out of one piece of leather. If, however, one wrote them upon one parchment and put them in the four compartments, that is sufficient. There must be a blank space between each [portion]. So Rabbi; but the Sages say, This is not necessary. They agree, however, that between each there must be a line or a thread. And if the divisions [between the compartments] were not noticeable, they are invalid. Our Rabbis taught: How must one write them? The portions for the hand-tefillah one should write upon one piece of parchment; if one wrote them upon four pieces of parchment and put them in one compartment that is still valid. They must, however, be fastened together, for it is written, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand and as outside it is one sign, so inside, too, it must be one sign. This is the opinion of R. Judah. But R. Jose says, This is not necessary. Moreover, said R. Jose, R. Judah Berabbi concedes to me that if a man has no hand-tefillah but has two head-tefillahs, he may cover up one of them with a skin and place it [on his arm]. ‘Concede’, [you say,] but that is the very issue between them! — Raba answered, R. Jose's statement proves that R. Judah withdrew his opinion. Surely this cannot be, for R. Haninah sent [from Palestine] the following ruling in the name of R. Johanan: The hand-tefillah may be converted for use on the head but the head-tefillah may not be converted for use on the arm, for one may not bring down what is of a higher sanctity to a lower sanctity! — This is no difficulty, for one [ruling] refers to an old one and the other to a new one. And according to him who maintains that the mere designation [of a thing for a certain purpose] has a certain force, [we must say that the owner] had made a reservation with regard to it from the very outset. Our Rabbis taught: What is the order [of the four Scriptural portions in the head-tefillah]? ‘Sanctify unto Me’ and ‘And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee’ are on the right, while ‘Hear’ and ‘And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently’ are on the left. But there has been taught just the reverse? — Abaye said, This is no contradiction, for in the one case the reference is to the right of the reader, whereas in the other it is to the right of the one that wears them; the reader thus reads them according to their order. R. Hananel said in the name of Rab, If a man reversed the order of the Scriptural portions, it is invalid. Abaye said, This is so^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ

^ᵃᵃnote:The word ,pyyk (frontlets, i.e., the tefillin) occurs three times in the Torah, twice (Deut. VI, 8 and XI, 18) defectively written, ,pyyk so that in each instance the word might be read in the singular, and once (Ex. XIII, 16) written plene, ,upyyk, which indicates the plural number,’ thus making a total of four. It must be noted that this Talmudic statement does not agree with the Masoretic text, for ,upyyk, written plene, is not to be found at all in our versions. V. Tosaf. s.v. ,pyyk.
^ᵃᵇnote:Hence the rule that the tefillin worn on the head must be composed of four compartments, each containing a specified portion of Scripture.
^ᵃᶜnote:perhaps the Coptic language.
^ᵃᵈnote:The language of N. Africa.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ex. XIII, 9.
^ᵃᶠnote:This was constructed with the aid of a mould or frame over which the hide, flexible and moist, was tautly stretched and allowed to harden, thus assuming the required form.
^ᵃᵍnote:The four portions were written upon one long strip of parchment with large blank spaces between one portion and the other, and the parchment was so placed in the compartments that each portion occupied a separate compartment, and the blank spaces of the parchment corresponded with the spaces between the compartments.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., although the Sages do not insist upon the leaving of a blank space between one portion and the other, they nevertheless concede to Rabbi that each portion must be separated and marked off from the others at least by a thread. Others explain: even when the four portions are in four separate compartments, each portion must be tied up with a thread. V. Sh. Mek. n. 4.
^ᵃⁱnote:Although consisting of four compartments they were so firmly united that the divisions were no longer noticeable from the outside.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the tefillah (sing. of tefillin) that is put on the arm.
^ᵃᵏnote:Into one piece, either sewn together or joined together with glue.
^ᵃˡnote:Ex. XIII, 9.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. to join the pieces of parchment into one.
^ᵃⁿnote:‘The eminent scholar’ (Rashi). V. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64, n. 1.
^ᵃᵒnote:R. Judah maintaining that the hand-tefillah must be one inside as it is outside.
^ᵃᵖnote:The head-tefillah is deemed to be of a higher sanctity than that worn on the arm, since the former bears upon it two letters of the Name hsa ‘Almighty’, whereas the hand-tefillah bears only the last letter of this name; cf. infra 35b. In view of this ruling, then, how can it be said that both R. Judah and R. Jose agree that the head-tefillah may be converted for use upon the hand merely by covering it with a piece of leather?
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., the head-tefillah had already been worn on the head, in which case its sanctity may not be lowered by converting it for use upon the arm.
^ᵃʳnote:The tefillah had been made as a head-tefillah and also designated for that purpose but had not yet been worn; in that case it may be converted for use on the arm.
^ᵃˢnote:V. Sanh. 47b, Meg. 26b, and Ber. 23b. The fact that it was intended to be used as a head-tefillah will debar it from being used upon the arm.
^ᵃᵗnote:Namely, that if he should require it for use as a hand-tefillah he will convert it to that use.
^ᵃᵘnote:Ex. XIII, 1-10.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ibid. 11-16.
^ᵃʷnote:Deut. VI, 4-9.
^ᵃˣnote:Ibid. XI, 13-21.
^ᵃʸnote:In the first Baraitha.
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e., the person facing the one that wears the tefillin.
^ᵇᵃnote:When reading the portions from right to left (Rashi).
^ᵇᵇnote:Sc. as they are found in the Torah, and that is, the order as given in the first Baraitha (Rashi). According to R. Tam's interpretation of the first Baraitha, which states the order from the reader's point of view, the sections occupy the following places: ‘Sanctify’ is on the extreme right, to the left of it is ‘And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee’, next to it is ‘And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently’, and on the extreme left is ‘Hear’.