Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 34

1) A DOORWAY THAT IS USED FREQUENTLY

QUESTION: Rav Huna rules that if there are two openings into a loft, they both require a Mezuzah. Rav Papa says that we learn from Rav Huna's ruling that the structure known as an "Indrona," which has four openings, requires four Mezuzos, one for each opening. The Gemara asks that Rav Papa's ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers that Rav Papa's ruling is necessary in a case in which one of the four openings is used more often than the others, where we might have thought that the other openings do not need a Mezuzah.

RASHI asks that the Gemara earlier (33a) says that "the entranceway through which Rebbi would enter the study hall did not have a Mezuzah." (Rashi there points out that there was a door near Rebbi's seat in the study hall through which he used to enter, instead of using the main entrance, in order not to trouble all of the students to stand up for him). The Gemara there questions this from the entranceway of Rav Huna into his study hall, which *did* have a Mezuzah. The Gemara answers that the doorway that Rav Huna used was "Ragil" -- it was used frequently, and the rule is that with regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah, we "follow the doorway which is used frequently" and require that a Mezuzah be placed only on a doorway which is used often.

How, then, can Rav Papa here rule that all of the openings of an Indrona require Mezuzos when one is used more frequently than the others? Only the opening that is "Ragil," that is used most frequently, should need a Mezuzah!

ANSWERS:

(a) In his first answer, Rashi explains that when there are only two doorways (and not more), and one is "Ragil" and one is not, the doorway that is not "Ragil" is considered subordinate and "Batel" to the doorway that is "Ragil," and it is exempt. When, however, there are three or four doorways and only one of them is "Ragil," all of the doorways remain obligated to have a Mezuzah, because three doorways cannot become "Batel" to one doorway to become exempt from Mezuzah. Only one doorway can become "Batel" to another doorway.

(b) In his second answer, Rashi quotes the TESHUVAS HA'GE'ONIM who answer that in the case of our Gemara, all four doorways were built for the use of all of the people entering and leaving the room. Although use of the room became less frequent as time went by, and it sufficed to use only one of the doorways regularly, the obligation of all four doorways to have a Mezuzah remains.

In contrast, in the case of the Gemara earlier (33a), the doorway that Rebbi used was used exclusively by Rebbi and by no one else. Such a doorway is considered "Eino Ragil," infrequently used, and is exempt from a Mezuzah. Rav Huna's doorway, however, was used by the general public as well as by Rav Huna, and therefore it was considered "Ragil" and was obligated to have a Mezuzah.

(c) The RAMBAM seems to have a different answer for Rashi's question. The Rambam (Hilchos Mezuzah 6:10) rules that a house that has many doorways entering it must have a Mezuzah on every doorway, even though only one of the doorways is regularly used. It is clear from the Rambam's ruling that the Rambam does not learn like Rashi that when the Gemara says that we "follow the doorway which is used frequently," it means that a door that is not used regularly, or a door that is used by only one of the many people who enter the room, does not require a Mezuzah.

The Rambam (6:11) then rules that a doorway between a synagogue or study hall and a house is obligated to have a Mezuzah only when it is regularly used. The Rambam does not mean that if a door between a study hall and a house is not used regularly, then it is exempt because we follow the doorway that is used regularly. The Rambam makes no mention of another doorway. Rather, the Rambam is saying that such a door, when not regularly used, is exempt because it is a doorway *between a study hall and a house*. Only this type of door is exempt from a Mezuzah when it is not regularly used. (KESEF MISHNEH)

What, though, is the logic behind this ruling? Why should a door between a study hall and a house need to be used regularly in order to be obligated to have a Mezuzah, if a normal doorway does not need to be used regularly in order to be obligated? The reason for this ruling of the Rambam is based on another ruling of the Rambam. The Rambam (6:6) rules that a synagogue and study hall are exempt from a Mezuzah, since they themselves are Kadosh, holy. The Rambam learns from the Gemara in Yoma (11b) that a holy place, designated exclusively for purposes of Kedushah, is exempt from Mezuzah.

If the Rambam exempts doorways of holy places from Mezuzah, then why did Rav Huna's doorway need one? The answer is that since Rav Huna used it regularly to enter the study hall from his house, the door was considered to be one of the doors of *his house*. A door of a house is obligated to have a Mezuzah (and the Mezuzah of Rav Huna's doorway into the study hall was placed on the right side of the doorway as one enters the house). However, in the case of Rebbi, the private doorway was used infrequently, and thus it was exempt from Mezuzah. In such a case, the doorway does not receive the status of a door to the house, but it remains just another door to the study hall, and a door to the study hall is exempt from a Mezuzah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

Rav Huna rules that if there are two openings into a loft, they both require a Mezuzah. Rav Papa says that we learn from Rav Huna's ruling that the structure known as an "Indrona," which has four openings, requires four Mezuzos, one for each opening. The Gemara asks that Rav Papa's ruling is obvious. The Gemara answers that Rav Papa's ruling is necessary in a case in which one of the four openings is used more often than the others, where we might have thought that the other openings do not need a Mezuzah.

As we discussed earlier (see previous Insight), RASHI asks that the Gemara earlier (33a) says that "the entranceway through which Rebbi would enter the study hall did not have a Mezuzah." The Gemara there questions this from the entranceway of Rav Huna into his study hall, which *did* have a Mezuzah. The Gemara answers that the doorway that Rav Huna used was "Ragil" -- it was used frequently, and the rule is that with regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah, we "follow the doorway which is used frequently" and require that a Mezuzah be placed only on a doorway which is used often.

How, then, can Rav Papa here rule that all of the openings of an Indrona require Mezuzos when one is used more frequently than the others? Only the opening that is "Ragil," that is used most frequently, should need a Mezuzah!

We learned that Rashi answers (in his first answer) that when there are only two doorways (and not more), and one is "Ragil" and one is not, the doorway that is not "Ragil" is considered subordinate and "Batel" to the doorway that is "Ragil," and it is exempt. When, however, there are three or four doorways and only one of them is "Ragil," all of the doorways remain obligated to have a Mezuzah, because three doorways cannot become "Batel" to one doorway to become exempt from Mezuzah. Only one doorway can become "Batel" to another doorway.

RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (Igros Moshe YD 1:177) adds an important point. Rashi's rule that an infrequently-used door becomes Batel to a door that is "Ragil" applies only when both doors serve the same purpose and could have been used regularly but, for whatever reason, only one of them is used regularly. In this case, the door that is not used regularly is "Batel" to the other door. However, if the reason why one of the doors is not used regularly is because it opens to a different courtyard or street where there are less people, then it is obligated to have a Mezuzah. In such a case, the reason why the door is used less frequently is not because it is a "minor" door to people. Rather, it is used less frequently because it is less accessible to the people coming from the more populated street. For the people who enter from the less populated street, this door is their primary, major door, and there is no reason to exempt it from Mezuzah.

Rav Moshe shows that this Halachah is clearly stated in the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 286:18). The Shulchan Aruch writes that "a house that has many entranceways requires a Mezuzah in each one, even though only one of them is used regularly for entering and leaving." In the previous Halachah (286:17), the Shulchan Aruch rules like Rashi's second answer (see previous Insight) that only when both doors were originally used by the public are they both obligated to have a Mezuzah. How, then, can the Shulchan Aruch rule that even when the other doors were used infrequently from the start, they are obligated to have a Mezuzah? It must be that the Shulchan Aruch here is discussing a case in which each door of the room or house opens to a different Chatzer, and, therefore, no door is secondary to the other. Only in the previous Halachah, where the doorways are all open to the same area, is there a condition that each door originally be made to be used equally by everyone in order to be required to have a Mezuzah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

34b

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that only a new Tefilin Shel Rosh ("Chadetasa"), that was prepared for use but not actually used, may be used as a Tefilin Shel Yad, according to the opinion that maintains that preparation for use is inconsequential ("Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi").

The Acharonim question this ruling from a Halachah regarding the parchment used for Tefilin. The Halachah is that a parchment that was processed with intention that it be used for Tefilin may not be used for a mundane purpose, even according to the opinion that maintains "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi" (REMA OC 42:3). The reason for this is because the question of whether Hazmanah is consequential or not applies only to items that are "Tashmishei Kedushah" -- items that are used for a purpose of Kedushah, such as a Tefilin case. Items that are themselves Kedushah cannot be used for another purpose, even if they were only prepared for use and not yet used. For this reason, a parchment prepared for Tefilin may not be used for a non-holy purpose.

Why, then, may a Tefilin that was prepared to be used as a Tefilin Shel Rosh be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad? The Tefilin itself is an item of Kedushah, as the Gemara here says that changing from a Tefilin Shel Rosh to a Tefilin Shel Yad is considered lowering the Kedushah of the Tefilin!

ANSWERS:

(a) The LEVUSHEI SERAD (cited by the YOSEF DA'AS) writes that the prohibition of decreasing the Kedushah of item by changing its use applies only to using a Kadosh item for an entirely non-Kadosh purpose. It may be changed from one Kedushah to another, even when the second Kedushah is a lower degree of Kedushah.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Teshuvos, #3), however, argues with the Levushei Serad. He says that the Poskim who rule that an item that itself has Kedushah cannot be changed and used for another purpose maintain that it may not be used even for a lower Kedushah.

(b) RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI SOLOVEITCHIK (Hilchos Tefilin 10:11) explains that Hazmanah can establish that this Tefilin is meant to be a Tefilin Shel Rosh, and -- if "Hazmanah Milsa Hi" -- the Tefilin cannot be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad. However, the prohibition to change an item of Kedushah that had Hazmanah to an item of a lower degree of Kedushah is based on an additional consideration. Hazmanah prevents an item from being changed to a different Kedushah only when the second Kedushah is brought about in way that is different from the way that the first Kedushah is created. The Kedushah of a Tefilin Shel Rosh and the Kedushah of a Tefilin Shel Yad are brought about in exactly the same way. There is no requirement that the leather used for making each Tefilin must be processed specifically with intention that it be used for a Tefilin Shel Rosh or Shel Yad; it needs to be processed only with intention that it be used for Kedushah Tefilin. Therefore, according to the opinion that maintains "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi," a Tefilin Shel Rosh may be changed to a Tefilin Shel Yad."

In contrast, when there is a difference in the preparation of the Kedushah of the item, then the Halachah is that even if "Hazmanah Lav Milsa Hi," the item may not be changed to a different Kedushah.

Another example of this is parchment prepared to be used for a Sefer Torah. The parchment must be prepared with intention that it be used for Kedushas Sefer Torah. Consequently, the parchment may not be used for any other purpose, even for a purpose of a lower Kedushah (as mentioned on 32a, "Sefer Torah she'Balah... Ein Osin Bahen Mezuzah, l'Fi she'Ein Moridin m'Kedushah Chamurah l'Kedushah Kalah.") (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)