Menachot Daf 32 (מנחות דף ל״ב)
Daf: 32 | Amudim: 32a – 32b | Date: 10 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (32a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s testimony about Rabbi Meir’s mezuza practices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹשֶׂה רֶיוַח מִלְּמַעְלָה וְרֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה, וְעוֹשֶׂה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֶיהָ פְּתוּחוֹת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רַבִּי, מָה טַעַם? אָמַר לִי: הוֹאִיל וְאֵין סְמוּכוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
English Translation:
And he would make a space above and a space below the text and would prepare the passages of the mezuza in the open manner, i.e., he would begin the second passage on the line following the end of the first passage. I said to him: My teacher, for what reason do you prepare the passages in the open manner, when in a Torah scroll those same passages are written in the closed manner? He said to me: Since the passages are not adjacent to one another in the Torah, as the first passage is Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and the second is Deuteronomy 11:13–21, I prepare them as open passages.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the previous daf’s discussion about Rabbi Meir’s scribal practices for a mezuza, as reported by his student Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The passage introduces two key formatting elements: the spaces above and below the text, and the “open” (פתוחות) versus “closed” (סתומות) manner of writing paragraphs. Rabbi Meir’s reasoning—that the mezuza’s passages are separated in the Torah and therefore need not be treated as connected—introduces a principle about how scribal formatting should reflect the original biblical context.
Key Terms:
- פְּתוּחוֹת (Petuchot) = Open paragraphs — where a new paragraph begins on a new line after the previous paragraph ends mid-line
- סְתוּמוֹת (Setumot) = Closed paragraphs — where a new paragraph begins on the same line after a small gap
- רֶיוַח (Reivach) = A space or margin left above or below the text
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Does Rav’s ruling on Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar apply to open paragraphs?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל, אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי לָאו אַפְּתוּחוֹת?
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. What, is it not correct that Rav stated this with regard to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion that one prepares the passages in the open manner? This would present a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, Rav’s student, who wrote them in the closed manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now raises a difficulty. If Rav ruled that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, this would seem to endorse writing the mezuza’s passages in the “open” manner. But Rav Huna, Rav’s own student, wrote them in the “closed” manner (as stated on the previous daf). How could Rav Huna have deviated from his teacher’s ruling? This tension drives the following discussion about what exactly Rav meant.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כְּ… (Halakha ke…) = The law follows [a particular authority] — a formal ruling indicating normative practice
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rav’s ruling refers to the margin space, not open/closed paragraphs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, אַרֶיוַח. וְכַמָּה רֶיוַח? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יַעֲקֹב: כִּמְלֵא אַטְבָּא דְּסִיפְרֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: No; he meant that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar with regard to the space that one must leave above and below the text. The Gemara asks: And how much space must one leave? Rav Menashya bar Ya’akov says, and some say it is Rav Shmuel bar Ya’akov who says: The space of a full scribe’s clip [atba], with which the sheets of parchment are held.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by reinterpreting Rav’s ruling. Rav was not endorsing the “open” paragraph format, but rather the requirement to leave margins above and below the text. This reconciles Rav’s statement with Rav Huna’s practice of writing in the “closed” manner. The Gemara then specifies the required margin size: the width of a scribe’s clip (אַטְבָּא), a practical measuring tool familiar to professional scribes.
Key Terms:
- אַטְבָּא דְּסִיפְרֵי (Atba d’Sifrei) = A scribe’s clip — a small tool used to hold parchment sheets, serving as a standard unit of measurement for margins
Segment 4
TYPE: ראיה
Abaye’s proof: Rav’s respect for custom confirms the interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא דְּכִי אָמַר רַב אַרֶיוַח, וְהָא רַב אִית לֵיהּ מִנְהֲגָא, וְהָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא בִּסְתוּמוֹת!
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that when Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was referring to the space, not the manner of writing the passages? But Rav is of the opinion that an established custom must be observed, and nowadays the general custom is to write the passages of the mezuza in the closed manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye provides additional support for the interpretation that Rav referred to margins, not paragraph style. He invokes a fundamental principle of Rav’s jurisprudence: established customs must be observed. Since the prevailing custom was to write mezuzot with “closed” paragraphs, Rav could not have ruled otherwise. This introduces a significant halakhic principle—the binding force of minhag (custom)—which the Gemara will illustrate with a dramatic example.
Key Terms:
- מִנְהָג (Minhag) = Custom — an established practice that, according to Rav, carries halakhic weight and cannot be overturned even by prophetic revelation
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
Proof: Rav’s famous statement about Elijah and the sandal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר חוֹלְצִין בְּמִנְעָל – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּסַנְדָּל – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נָהֲגוּ הָעָם בְּסַנְדָּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara provides the source that according to Rav one must observe established customs. Ḥalitza is the ritual that frees the widow of a childless man from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her late husband’s brother. This ceremony involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. Rabba spoke of the importance of observing customs in that context, as Rabba says that Rav Kahana says that Rav says: If Elijah comes and says that one performs ḥalitza with a shoe, the Sages listen to him. But if he says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed to performing ḥalitza with a sandal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a striking illustration of Rav’s principle about the authority of custom. Even if Elijah the Prophet himself were to appear and rule that chalitza cannot be performed with a sandal, the Sages would not accept this—because the custom of using a sandal is already established. This remarkable statement elevates minhag to a level that even prophetic clarification cannot override. The example comes from an entirely different halakhic context (levirate marriage) but demonstrates the general principle.
Key Terms:
- חֲלִיצָה (Chalitza) = The ritual removing of the brother-in-law’s footwear, which releases the widow from the obligation of levirate marriage (yibum)
- מִנְעָל (Min’al) = A shoe — fully enclosed footwear
- סַנְדָּל (Sandal) = A sandal — open footwear with straps
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative version of Rav’s statement about Elijah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב: אִם יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וְיֹאמַר אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּמִנְעָל – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֵין חוֹלְצִין בְּסַנְדָּל – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נָהֲגוּ הָעָם בְּסַנְדָּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara presents another version of Rav’s statement: And Rav Yosef says that Rav Kahana says that Rav says: If Elijah comes and says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a shoe, the Sages listen to him; if he says that one may not perform ḥalitza with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed to performing ḥalitza with a sandal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef transmits a slightly different version of the same statement. In this version, if Elijah says one may NOT use a shoe, we listen; but if he says one may NOT use a sandal, we do not listen. The key point remains identical: custom is inviolable. The difference between the versions pertains only to the status of shoes, not sandals.
Key Terms:
- לְכַתְּחִילָּה (Lechatchila) = Ab initio — the preferred or ideal manner of performing an action from the outset
Segment 7
TYPE: מסקנא
Conclusion: Rav’s ruling refers to margins, confirmed by his respect for custom
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? מִנְעָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַרֶיוַח? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Abaye continues: And we say, when discussing these versions of his statement: What is the difference between these two versions of his statement? The difference is whether one may use a shoe ab initio. In any case, according to both statements Rav maintains that a custom must be observed, and the custom in this case is to write the passages in a closed manner. Rather, must one not conclude from it that when Rav says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was speaking of the space, not the manner of preparing the passages? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is correct.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes this unit. Regardless of which version of Rav’s Elijah statement is correct, both versions demonstrate that Rav considered established custom to be binding. Since the custom was to write mezuzot in the “closed” format, Rav’s endorsement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar must have referred only to the margin requirement, not to the paragraph style. The discussion firmly resolves in favor of this interpretation.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ (Shema minah) = Conclude from this — a formal phrase indicating that the Gemara accepts the proposed inference as correct
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Both formats are valid, closed is preferred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹתָן סְתוּמוֹת, וְאִי עַבְדִינְהוּ פְּתוּחוֹת – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, וּמַאי פְּתוּחוֹת דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – אַף פְּתוּחוֹת.
English Translation:
§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is a mitzva ab initio to prepare the passages of a mezuza in the closed manner,but if one prepared them in the open manner, it is permitted to use the mezuza. And what is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saying when he says that Rabbi Meir would prepare the passages in the open manner? He means that one may prepare them even in the open manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a synthesis that accommodates both positions. The ideal (lechatchila) is to write in the “closed” manner, but if one wrote in the “open” manner, the mezuza is still valid (bedieved). He reinterprets Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s testimony: Rabbi Meir wasn’t insisting on the “open” format as required, but rather demonstrating that it too is acceptable. This elegant solution preserves respect for custom while validating Rabbi Meir’s practice.
Key Terms:
- שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי (Shapir dami) = It is fine/valid — indicating post-facto acceptability even if not the ideal method
- בְּדִיעֲבַד (Bedieved) = After the fact — when something was already done, even if not in the ideal manner
Segment 9
TYPE: ראיה
Attempted proof from a baraita about reducing sanctity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבָּלָה וּתְפִילִּין שֶׁבָּלוּ – אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מְזוּזָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה. הָא מוֹרִידִין – עוֹשִׂין.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports his opinion: Similarly, just as one may not convert phylacteries of the head into phylacteries of the arm, with regard to a Torah scroll that became worn and parchment of phylacteries that became worn, one may not fashion them into a mezuza by excising the relevant passages, despite the fact that the Torah passages of a mezuza appear in them. This is prohibited because one does not reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity, that of a Torah scroll or phylacteries, to a level of lesser sanctity, that of a mezuza. The Gemara infers from this baraita: If it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could fashion a mezuza from a Torah scroll.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to support Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s position with a baraita about sacred objects. The baraita prohibits converting worn Torah scrolls or tefillin into a mezuza because one may not “demote” an item from higher to lower sanctity. The Gemara infers: if not for this sanctity rule, such conversion would be technically possible—implying that the writing format (open vs. closed) is not an obstacle. This would support the view that both formats are valid for a mezuza.
Key Terms:
- מוֹרִידִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה (Moridin mikedusha chamura likedusha kala) = Reducing from greater sanctity to lesser sanctity — a principle that sacred objects may not be “demoted”
- תְּפִילִּין (Tefillin) = Phylacteries — leather boxes containing Torah passages, worn during prayer
Segment 10
TYPE: דחיה
Refutation: Perhaps only partial completion would be permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמַּאי? הָכָא סְתוּמוֹת וְהָכָא פְּתוּחוֹת! דִּלְמָא לְהַשְׁלִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the proof: But why is that the halakha, when here, in a Torah scroll, the passages are prepared in the closed manner, but there, in a mezuza, the passages are prepared in the open manner? Evidently, it is permitted to write a mezuza with the passages prepared in the closed manner. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps one should infer from the baraita that were it not for the fact that it is prohibited to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one would be allowed to complete a line or two of a mezuza by sewing to it those lines from a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries that became worn, but one may not fashion an entire mezuza from a sheet of a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries, as the passages in a Torah scroll and phylacteries are prepared in the closed manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to derive proof but then refutes it. The argument was: if format mattered, how could one even theoretically make a mezuza from a Torah scroll (which has closed paragraphs)? This would prove that both formats work. But the Gemara deflects: perhaps the baraita only contemplates using Torah scroll material to “complete” an existing mezuza—sewing on a missing line—not to create an entire mezuza. Thus, the format issue remains unresolved.
Key Terms:
- לְהַשְׁלִים (Lehashlim) = To complete — using material to fill in a missing portion rather than creating a new item entirely
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge about parchment types; resolution: the requirement is ideal but not indispensable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מוֹרִידִין עוֹשִׂין? וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי – תְּפִילִּין עַל הַקְּלָף, וּמְזוּזָה עַל דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס; קְלָף בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר, דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר! לְמִצְוָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks another question: The baraita indicates that if it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could fashion a mezuza from phylacteries. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the passages of phylacteries are written on parchment, the outer layer of an animal’s hide, and the passages of a mezuza are written on dokhsostos, the inner layer, and when writing on parchment, one writes on the side of the hide that faced the flesh; when writing on dokhsostos, one writes on the side of the hide on which there was hair? How, then, can one use the other side of the hide for a mezuza? The Gemara answers that this requirement is of dokhsostos for a mezuza is stated as a mitzva, but it is not indispensable.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a technical objection about parchment. Tefillin must be written on “klaf” (outer parchment), while mezuzot require “duchsostos” (inner parchment)—and each must be written on a specific side of the hide. This is a halakha leMoshe miSinai (oral law from Sinai). If so, how could one ever convert tefillin parchment into a mezuza? The Gemara answers that the duchsostos requirement for mezuza is the ideal (mitzva), but not indispensable—a mezuza on klaf would still be valid.
Key Terms:
- קְלָף (Klaf) = Parchment — the outer layer of processed animal hide, used for tefillin
- דּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס (Duchsostos) = The inner layer of processed animal hide, preferred for mezuzot
- הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי (Halakha leMoshe miSinai) = A law transmitted orally to Moses at Sinai, not derived from scriptural interpretation
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenges about changing parchment type; resolutions limit the scope to tefillin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה פָּסוּל בִּתְפִילִּין! וְהָתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בְּזֶה פָּסוּל! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּתְפִילִּין, וְהָא דְּכַתְבִינְהוּ אַקְּלָף בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר, וְהָא
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one changed between parchment and dokhsostos, the item is unfit? The Gemara responds that this baraita is referring to phylacteries that one wrote on dokhsostos in the manner of a mezuza, not to a mezuza which one wrote on parchment. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one changed whether in this manner or in that manner, it is unfit? The Gemara explains that this baraita does not mean that one changed either in the case of phylacteries or a mezuza. Rather, both this manner and that manner are referring to phylacteries, and this case is where one wrote them on parchment but on the side of the hide on which there was hair, not on the side that faced the flesh, and that
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises successive challenges from baraitot that seem to invalidate any deviation from the prescribed parchment type. The first baraita says “if one changed, it’s invalid”—but the Gemara limits this to tefillin written on the wrong type. The second baraita says changing “in this or that manner” is invalid—but again the Gemara interprets both cases as referring to tefillin written on the wrong side of the parchment. The segment cuts off mid-thought, continuing on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- שִׁינָּה (Shina) = If one changed — deviated from the prescribed manner
- פָּסוּל (Pasul) = Unfit/invalid — not acceptable for use in fulfilling the mitzva
Amud Bet (32b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Conclusion: Both cases of “changing” refer to tefillin, not mezuza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּכַתְבִינְהוּ אַדּוּכְסוּסְטוֹס בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
case is where one wrote them on dokhsostos on the side that faced the flesh. In both of these situations the phylacteries are unfit, but a mezuza that one wrote on parchment is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the explanation from the previous amud. The baraita that invalidates writing “in this or that manner” refers exclusively to tefillin: either writing on klaf on the hair side (instead of flesh side), or writing on duchsostos on the flesh side (instead of hair side). Both are invalid for tefillin. The key conclusion is that a mezuza written on klaf (parchment) rather than duchsostos remains valid—the parchment type requirement for mezuza is ideal but not indispensable.
Key Terms:
- בִּמְקוֹם בָּשָׂר (Bimkom basar) = On the side that faced the flesh — the inner surface of the hide
- בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר (Bimkom se’ar) = On the side that had hair — the outer surface of the hide
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ אחר
Alternative answer: The parchment requirements are a tannaitic dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שִׁינָּה בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁינָּה בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה – פָּסוּל, רַבִּי [אַחָא מַכְשִׁיר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי] אַחַאי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that the ruling of the baraita that if one changed whether in this manner or in that manner it is unfit is in fact referring to a mezuza that one wrote on parchment, and this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If one changed in this manner or in that manner it is unfit. Rabbi Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, deems it fit; and some say he said this ruling in the name of Rabbi Akiva, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an alternative resolution: perhaps the baraita about changing parchment types does apply to mezuza after all, and the question of whether a mezuza on klaf is valid is simply a tannaitic dispute. The anonymous Tanna invalidates it, while Rabbi Acha (citing Rabbi Achai or Rabbi Akiva ben Rabbi Chanina) validates it. This “machlokes Tannaim” approach is a common Talmudic strategy—rather than forcing a harmonization, acknowledge that the earlier authorities disagreed.
Key Terms:
- וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא (Ve’ibait eima) = And if you wish, say — introducing an alternative explanation
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא (Tanna’ei hi) = It is a dispute between Tannaim — the disagreement goes back to the Mishnaic era
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
New challenge: Mezuza requires scoring (sirtut), tefillin do not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מוֹרִידִין עוֹשִׂין – וְהָא בָּעֲיָא שִׂרְטוּט, דְּאָמַר רַב מִנְיוֹמֵי בַּר חִלְקִיָּה, אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מְזוּזָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְשׂוּרְטֶטֶת פְּסוּלָה, וְרַב מִנְיָמִין בַּר חִלְקִיָּה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: שִׂרְטוּט שֶׁל מְזוּזָה הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
English Translation:
§ The baraita indicates that if it were permitted to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could make a mezuza from phylacteries that became worn. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But a mezuza requires scoring, i.e., the parchment must have lines etched in it before writing, as Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: Any mezuza that is not scored is unfit, and Rav Minyumi bar Ḥilkiya himself says concerning this: The scoring of a mezuza is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. With regard to phylacteries, by contrast, he does not teach that their parchment requires scoring.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a new technical obstacle to converting tefillin into a mezuza. A mezuza requires “sirtut”—scored lines etched into the parchment before writing. Rav states that an unscored mezuza is invalid, and Rav Minyumi bar Chilkiya adds that this requirement is a halakha leMoshe miSinai. Tefillin parchment, however, is not necessarily scored. If so, how could one theoretically convert tefillin parchment into a mezuza?
Key Terms:
- שִׂרְטוּט (Sirtut) = Scoring — lines etched into parchment to guide straight writing, required for a mezuza
- מְשׂוּרְטֶטֶת (Mesuretet) = Scored — having the required lines etched into the parchment
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: The scoring requirement is also a tannaitic dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ: תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת נִכְתָּבוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב, וְאֵין צְרִיכוֹת שִׂירְטוּט.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that this is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yirmeya says in the name of our teacher, Rav: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text, and their parchment does not require scoring.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara again resolves the difficulty by identifying a tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Yirmiya, citing Rav (here called “Rabbeinu” — our teacher), rules that neither tefillin nor mezuzot require scoring, and both may be written from memory rather than copied from an existing text. This lenient position would permit converting tefillin parchment into a mezuza. The previous strict ruling about scoring thus represents only one side of a debate.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב (Shelo min haketav) = Not from a written text — writing from memory rather than copying from another scroll
- רַבֵּינוּ (Rabbeinu) = Our teacher — a respectful title, here referring to Rav
Segment 5
TYPE: הלכתא
Final ruling on scoring and copying requirements
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִילְכְתָא: תְּפִילִּין לָא בָּעֵי שִׂרְטוּט, וּמְזוּזָה בָּעֲיָא שִׂירְטוּט, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נִכְתָּבוֹת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַכְּתָב. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִיגְרָס גְּרִיסִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the parchment of phylacteries does not require scoring, but the parchment of a mezuza requires scoring. And unlike a Torah scroll, both these and those, phylacteries and mezuzot, may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text. What is the reason for this leniency? These short texts are well known to all scribes, and therefore it is permitted to write them by heart.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a definitive halakhic ruling that splits the difference between the earlier positions. Tefillin do NOT require scoring, but mezuzot DO require scoring. However, both may be written from memory rather than copied from an existing text—unlike a Torah scroll, which must be copied. The rationale is practical: the texts of tefillin and mezuzot are short and well-memorized by scribes (“migras gerisin” — they are frequently reviewed), so there is no risk of error.
Key Terms:
- וְהִילְכְתָא (VeHilkheta) = And the halakha is — a formal statement of the final ruling
- מִיגְרָס גְּרִיסִין (Migras gerisin) = They are well-reviewed/learned — scribes know these texts by heart from constant study
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Helbo’s testimony: Rav Huna would not sit on a bed with a Torah scroll
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חֶלְבּוֹ: אֲנָא חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב אַפּוּרְיָא דְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עֲלֵיהּ, וְכַף לְכַדָּא אַאַרְעָא, וְאַנַּח עֲלֵיהּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, וַהֲדַר יְתֵיב בְּמִיטָּה. קָסָבַר: אָסוּר לֵישֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ.
English Translation:
In connection to Rav Ḥelbo relating the customs of Rav Huna, the Gemara cites that Rav Ḥelbo says: I myself saw Rav Huna as he wished to sit on his bed, which had a Torah scroll placed on it. And he overturned a jug on the ground and placed the Torah scroll on it, and only then sat on the bed. The reason he did so is that he holds that it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is placed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a related topic: respect for sacred texts. Rav Helbo reports personally witnessing Rav Huna’s meticulous practice. When Rav Huna needed to sit on a bed that had a Torah scroll on it, he first removed the scroll—placing it on an overturned jug on the floor—before sitting down. This demonstrates Rav Huna’s position that one may not sit at the same level as a Torah scroll. The jug elevated the scroll above ground level while allowing Rav Huna to use the bed.
Key Terms:
- פּוּרְיָא (Purya) = Bed — the furniture upon which the Torah scroll was resting
- כַּדָּא (Kadda) = A jug — here used as a makeshift stand to elevate the Torah scroll
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: Rabbi Yochanan permits sitting on a bed with a Torah scroll
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּתָּר לֵישֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם לְחָשְׁךָ אָדָם לוֹמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל הַמִּיטָּה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה מוּנָּח עָלֶיהָ, וְנִשְׁמַט וְיָשַׁב עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁהִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ – הָתָם סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע הֲוָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this halakha disagrees with a ruling of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is permitted to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is placed. And if a person whispers to you, saying: There was an incident involving Rabbi Elazar, who was sitting on a bed and realized that a Torah scroll was placed on it, and he immediately slipped off the bed and sat upon the ground, and in doing so he looked like one who had been bitten by a snake, i.e., he jumped up in a panic, that incident is no proof. There, the Torah scroll was placed on the ground. It is certainly disgraceful for one to sit on a bed while a Torah scroll is on the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents a contrasting view. Rabba bar bar Chana in the name of Rabbi Yochanan permits sitting on a bed that has a Torah scroll on it—disagreeing with Rav Huna’s stringent practice. Rabbi Yochanan anticipates an objection from a dramatic story about Rabbi Elazar, who jumped off a bed “like one bitten by a snake” upon realizing a Torah scroll was present. Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes: in that incident, the Torah scroll was on the ground (beneath the bed), which is certainly disgraceful—but if the scroll is on the bed itself, sitting is permitted.
Key Terms:
- כְּמִי שֶׁהִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ (Kemi shehikisho nachash) = Like one bitten by a snake — a vivid idiom describing sudden, panicked movement
- וּפְלִיגָא (Upliga) = And it disagrees — indicating a dispute between authorities
Segment 8
TYPE: הלכה
Shmuel: A mezuza written casually like a letter is invalid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּתָבָהּ אִגֶּרֶת – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָתְיָא ״כְּתִיבָה״ ״כְּתִיבָה״ מִסֵּפֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the discussion about the halakhot of writing a mezuza. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If one wrote a mezuza in the manner of a missive that one composes to a friend, i.e., without being exact about the lettering of each word, it is unfit. What is the reason? This is derived by a verbal analogy between “writing,” and “writing,” from a scroll, which must be written in precisely the correct manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to practical mezuza laws. Shmuel rules that a mezuza written casually—like an informal letter to a friend—is invalid. The reasoning uses a gezeira shava (verbal analogy): the word “writing” (כתיבה) appears regarding mezuza, and the same word appears regarding a Torah scroll. Just as a Torah scroll requires precise, formal scribal writing, so too does a mezuza. This establishes that mezuza writing must meet professional scribal standards.
Key Terms:
- אִגֶּרֶת (Igeret) = A letter/missive — informal correspondence, contrasted with formal scribal writing
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה (Gezeira shava) = Verbal analogy — a hermeneutical method linking two laws that share the same word
Segment 9
TYPE: הלכה
Shmuel: A mezuza hung on a stick or behind the door is invalid and dangerous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּלָאָהּ בְּמַקֵּל – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ בָּעֵינַן. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: תְּלָאָהּ בְּמַקֵּל, אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ אַחַר הַדֶּלֶת – סַכָּנָה וְאֵין בָּהּ מִצְוָה.
English Translation:
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If one hung a mezuza on a stick in the entranceway, without affixing it to the doorpost, it is unfit. What is the reason? We require the fulfillment of the verse: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9). This ruling is also taught in a baraita: If one hung a mezuza on a stick, or placed it so that it was affixed behind the door within the house, he exposes himself to danger, and it does not enable him to fulfill the mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel provides another mezuza ruling: the mezuza must be affixed directly to the doorpost. If one merely hangs it on a stick in the doorway, or places it behind the door (hidden inside), it is invalid. The Torah explicitly says “on your doorposts” (בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ), requiring physical attachment to the doorpost itself. A baraita adds a striking detail: such improper placement is not merely invalid but actually dangerous—perhaps suggesting that an improperly placed mezuza fails to provide the spiritual protection traditionally associated with the mitzva.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ (Bish’arekha) = Upon your gates/doorposts — the biblical requirement for mezuza placement (Deuteronomy 6:9)
- סַכָּנָה (Sakana) = Danger — indicating that improper mezuza placement may have spiritual consequences
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
The household of King Munbaz: Hanging mezuzot as a reminder
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁל בֵּית מוֹנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּפוּנְדְּקוֹתֵיהֶן כֵּן, זֵכֶר לִמְזוּזָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: The members of the household of King Munbaz would do so, i.e., hang mezuzot on sticks, in their inns, i.e., when they would sleep in an inn. They would not do this in order to fulfill the mitzva, as one who sleeps in an inn is exempt from placing a mezuza, but in remembrance of the mezuza. Since they would travel frequently, they wanted to remember the mitzva of mezuza, which they did not fulfill often.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a historical example of hanging mezuzot on sticks—but clarifies that this was not for mitzva fulfillment. The household of King Munbaz (a famous convert to Judaism from the royal family of Adiabene) traveled frequently and stayed in inns, where mezuzot are not required. They would hang mezuzot on sticks as a “zeicher” (remembrance)—a symbolic act to keep the mitzva in their consciousness despite being exempt. This demonstrates that some practice of mezuza, even when not obligatory, has spiritual value.
Key Terms:
- מוֹנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ (Munbaz haMelekh) = King Munbaz — king of Adiabene whose royal family famously converted to Judaism in the 1st century CE
- פוּנְדְּקוֹת (Pundakot) = Inns — temporary lodgings exempt from mezuza requirements
- זֵכֶר לִמְזוּזָה (Zeikher limezuza) = In remembrance of the mezuza — a symbolic practice, not fulfilling the actual mitzva
Segment 11
TYPE: הלכה
Shmuel: The mezuza must be placed within the doorway space
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ חֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל פֶּתַח. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רָבָא: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ
English Translation:
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a mitzva to place the mezuza within the airspace of the entrance, not on the outside. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? After all, the Merciful One states: “And upon your gates,” which indicates that it must be within the area of the gate, rather than the outside. The Gemara explains that it might enter your mind to say that since Rava says: It is a mitzva to place the mezuza
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel provides another ruling about mezuza placement: it must be within the airspace (חלל) of the entrance itself, not on the exterior wall. The Gemara initially finds this obvious—“upon your gates” surely means within the gateway. But the Gemara begins to explain why this ruling was necessary, apparently referencing a statement by Rava about mezuza placement (the text is cut off here, continuing on the next daf). This segment establishes that precise location matters, not just attachment to the doorpost.
Key Terms:
- חֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל פֶּתַח (Chalalo shel petach) = The airspace/cavity of the entrance — the area defined by the doorframe through which one passes
- רַחֲמָנָא (Rachmana) = The Merciful One — a reverent term for God, referring to the Torah’s words