Menachot

made 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.1 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,2 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.3 Amemar said, A door which is in the corner4 requires a mezuzah. Thereupon R. Ashi said to Amemar, But it has no posts! — He replied, Here are its posts.5 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,6 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?7 — It was taught: [Upon the doorposts of] thy house:8 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.9 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.10 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 portion11 the verse also says the doorposts,12 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;13 Scripture has thus brought down the law to one door-post.14 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.15 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.16 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,17 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,18 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.19 And [it20 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.21 R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, But the Divine Law says upon the door-posts,22 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,23 and then [place it] upon the door-posts. But since then it is written, ‘And thou shalt write them’,24 wherefore do I need the analogy of the common expressions? — Without the analogy I should have said that one must write it upon a stone25 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?26 — 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. and lower floors. Sometimes a door was placed both at the foot and at the top of the staircase. to Asheri the meaning is that the whole of one wall was taken up by the door. condition of plurality is no longer essential. 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. are to be written all the words of the law; cf. ibid. XXVII, 3ff., 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.