Affix Mezuzos on your doorposts
Verse: וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך
Command: Affix Mezuzos on your doorporsts
Devarim 6:9 & 11:20
SMG
To affix the parsha of שמע and the parsha of והיה אם שמע on the doorposts of our houses which is written in both[i] those Parshas וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך and in the Gemara[ii] we learnt that both Parshas [written completely with all their lettering intact] are critical for the Mitzvah. Anyone who does not place a Mezuzah transgresses two positive Mitzvos[1] [one for each time the verse says] וכתבתם, as we learnt in Gemara.[iii]
And all the rules regarding the writing of the Tefillin apply to the Mezuzah and the only difference between them is what we learnt in the Gemara[iv] that the Mezuzah requires שירטוט – meaning between each line, while Tefillin does not – meaning it only requires the four (4) lines; one (1) above, one in either margin (right and left) and one (1) below – which makes four (4) since the BHG ruled like Rabbi Yitzĉok[v] that two words may be written without שירטוט, but three (3) (or more) may not. [¢] The Yerushalmi[vi] implies[2] that this requirement to use שירטוט applies even to a אגרת שלומים – a letter in the post [α], since it [the Yerushalmi] asks is it permissible to write two or three words from a verse without שירטוט, and [the Yerushalmi answers] by bringing proof from Rabbi Mana who sent a letter (in the mail) to Rabbi Oshiya containing the statement[vii] ראשיתך מצער מאד ישגה אחריתך, which implies that [Rabbi Mana] inverted[3] the verse because he did not use שירטוט. The Rav, Rabbi Moshe son of Maimon (Rambam), wrote[viii] that a Mezuzah’s [parchment] does not need to be worked for the express intention of making a Mezuzah. It appears to me [the SMG] that his proof is from the Gemara[ix] which states regarding a Megillah that it must have שירטוט like the Truth of Torah – כאמיתה של תורה, as it says[x] [regarding the Megillah] דברי שלום ואמת. Tosefos explained[xi] that a Mezuzah [also] has the truth of the divine sovereignty; therefore if a Mezuzah would require that its parchment be processed with the specific intent of making a Mezuzah, then a Megillah [which also has כאמיתה של תורה] should require that as well, [but that isn’t the case,] as Rabbi Yoĉanan said there[xii] if one read the Megillah from a scroll of scripture (meaning a scroll containing the entirety of the scriptural writings from Tehillim through the end of the Torah – Divrei Hayamim) that fulfills the obligation – which implies that the Megillah need not be prepared for the purpose of writing a Megillah. There are reasons to argue [β] [that this is not the same as using parchment without any particular intent or with different intent]. Regardless, the world has developed the custom to [only] use parchment processed (and lined) with the specific intent of making a Mezuzah.
Rabbi Meir would leave a space above and below as large as מלא אטבא דספרי, which our Geon’im have determined to be the length of half a fingernail. [The amount of space left] on the sides was not explained, and perhaps since the Mezuzah will be rolled [from left to right] toward [the word] שמע then it needs to have at the beginning enough to roll it[4] all the way around like a Sefer Torah[5]. This is what Rabeinu Shimshon wrote[xiii].
It is a well know custom that we write on the outside [back] of the Mezuzah in the space between the two (2) Parshas, and we write on the opposite side of ה’ אלקינו ה’ (אחד) the name which would be exchanged under the system[6] of א → ב, which is the secondary letters to ה’ אלקינו ה’ → כוזו במוכסז כוזו. There is no detriment in doing so, since they are on the outside [back] of the Mezuzah. But doing so on the inside [face] [of the parchment] is forbidden – as is adding even a single letter. Nor should there be any seals with the names of angels[7], or anything else, because the Master of Everything commanded ‘do not add’ [negative Mitzvah 364] and ‘do not detract’ [negative Mitzvah 365].[xiv]
Rav Ĉisda said[xv] [that the words] על הארץ [and only those words] are written on the final line [γ] [of the Mezuzah]. There is a latter opinion that quotes an anonymous argument, where some say these words should be written at the end of the line [flush with the left margin – as in justifying (from a formatting perspective) the parsha] and some say at the beginning of the line [flush with the right margin – as in starting the line and leaving the remainder of the line empty]. Rav Ĉelbo said, ‘I saw Rav Huna who would roll the parchment from the word אחד [which is written at the end of the first line, flush with the left margin] towards the word שמע [which is written at beginning of the first line, flush with the right margin. In other words, he would roll it from right to left], and he would make the Parshas סתומות – closed. Rav concluded in the Gemara that the Mitzvah is that they [the Parshas] should be closed. But if they were made פתוחות – open, that is good, since these Parshas are not juxtaposed in the Torah. Also, in the Yerushalmi[xvi] Rav is also noted as ruling that Open Parshas are kosher since they are not juxtaposed in the Torah[8]. And afterward, [the Gemara] notes at length ‘that the determination of an Open paragraph is where it is open at its beginning. If it is Open at its beginning, it is Open. If it is Open at its end, it is Open. If it is Open on both sides [beginning and end], then it is Closed.’ I [the SMG] have been taught that this doesn’t refer to being completely open, but rather the start should have the space of nine (9) letters[9] – according to the סידור קדמוני, or three (3) letters – according to the tractate Sofrim[xvii]. Not that it should be completely open from its end, because then it would be an Open paragraph. Instead, the measurement of an opening is a space on either side less than three (3) letters[10] long at the end of the word ובשעריך at the end of the line (in the first paragraph), and less than three (3) letters at the beginning of the line where one begins writing והיה אם שמע as a method of recognizing that this is a new paragraph since they are not actually together in the Torah. This would then render the second paragraph fully closed since it has insufficient space at its start, and at the end [of the prior paragraph], and this would present no contradiction in the words of Rav.
Question: throughout the Gemara, the Parshas are referenced in the plural as being Closed, which isn’t actually the case. There’s only the single separation between שמע and והיה אם שמע. Rabeinu Shimshon wrote that since על הארץ is written at the end of the final line [flush with the left margin] [that is why even the Gemara references a plurality of Closed paragraphs.] This is also my [Rabeinu Shimshon’s] custom – but some of the world is accustomed to writing על הארץ at the beginning of the line.
There is also the scribe’s custom to write the Mezuzah using twenty-two (22) lines. But if one deviated from this custom, it is not פסול. [The SMG then enumerates the starting words in the custom that follows the writing of the Mezuzah over twenty-two (22) lines. As the final line only contains the final two words, על הארץ we can assume the SMG’s ruling is to have them written flush with the right margin.]
Before affixing the Mezuzah to the doorposts, one makes the ברכה of … אשר קידשנו במצותיו וציוונו לקבוע מזוזה. One doesn’t make the ברכה when the Mezuzah is written because the Mitzvah is to affix it [not to write it].
A personal Mezuzah should be checked twice every seven (7) years [δ], a public Mezuzah should be checked twice every fifty (50) years, since as Rashi notes[xviii] when it comes to the public, one should not burden them overmuch lest everyone attempt to assign the duty to someone else.
The Gemara[xix] teaches us, a house (or for that matter a room) which does not have the minimum size of [both[11]] four (4) Amos [in length], by four (4) Amos [in width] is exempt from [the obligation of affixing] a Mezuzah.
We learnt in the Gemara[xx] ‘desolate entranceways’ – meaning doorways without a lintel or ceiling [ε] [$] [an entranceway made of two posts only] is exempt from [the obligation to affix] a Mezuzah. Elsewhere in Gemara[xxi] Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah taught in front of Rava that there are six (6)[12] different types of gateways which are exempt from [the obligation to affix a] Mezuzah:
- a Granary
- a Barn [for animals]
- a Woodshed
- a Safe – here he argues with the Beraissa
- a gate without a ceiling
- a gate shorter than ten (10) Tefaĉim[13] tall.
The Gemara learns from the word ובשעריך that private gateways, courtyard[14] gateways, country border gateways [ζ] and city gateways – as well as storage houses for wine and oil – are all obligated [with the Mitzvah of affixing] a Mezuzah. You might think that the entrance to a balcony or terrace should be included as well – that is why the Torah said ביתך, meaning only places which are set aside for dwelling in – which excludes those which are not. You might think in that case we can include[15] a tannery, a shower house, or a bath house – but those can’t be included in the term ביתך because they are not made for dignified use. You might think we can include the Beis Hamikdash, or the chambers there, or the courtyards there – those aren’t in the term ביתך, which implies mundane use, not sanctified spaces. If so, the shuls and study halls should also be exempted [from the obligation of affixing a Mezuzah] – in fact, the Gemara says there that a shul which does not have a dwelling place for the Chazan is exempt from [the obligation to affix a] Mezuzah. As the Gemara writes, ‘but there is the opening where Rav Huna enters into the study hall, and there is a Mezuzah there?!’ [η] to which the Gemara answers, ‘that was ordinary’ – meaning that the entrance [and the subsequent chambers] were used by all the members of the household, which is how Rashi explained it. But if it wasn’t used by everyone, then it would be exempt[16].
We also said in that Gemara that a gateway opening to a courtyard to which private houses open to[17], require two (2) Mezuzos [one for the gateway into the courtyard, and one for the opening into the house], since one can derive this from a balcony or terrace [when they are not stand-alone structures, but are] open to house which are themselves obligated [to affix a] Mezuzah – are also obligated [meaning the balcony and terrace, when connected to a house, assume the obligation of Mezuzah as well]. For this [is the] reason why the gates to courtyards, countries and cities are all obligated in Mezuzah, since the houses within them are being guarded – which they themselves are obligated in Mezuzah – and are opened to them [meaning the gates to courtyards, countries and cities all lead to houses, and therefore assume the obligation of Mezuzah as well.]
We’ve also said there that a small opening between a house and its attic [$] is obligated in [the Mitzvah of Mezuzah]. And a room which has four (4) openings is obligated with four (4) Mezuzos. The Gemara asks that statement is obvious, and the Gemara answers that applies even when only one of the openings is commonly [in use].
We’ve also said there, that if the Mezuzah was inserted into the doorpost a full Tefaĉ [or more] it would be פסול. Furthermore, the Mitzvah is to affix the Mezuzah in the airspace of the door in the final Tefaĉ closest to the public domain [where the thickness of the frame provides for more than one Tefaĉ of space to place it] in order that the person entering will encounter the Mitzvah before entering.
A opening between two houses [which requires a Mezuzah, on which side should it be placed – meaning for which house is it the entrance] we follow the ‘recognition of the axis’ meaning depending on which direction the door swings[18]; one is obligated to affix the Mezuzah on the right side of the one entering that doorway – as it says in the verse ביתך – meaning in the way in which one enters the house, [the reason we place the Mezuzah on the right, and the reason entering the house is associated with the right is] because when a person starts walking, he moves his right leg first.
One need not place the Mezuzah on both right and left doorposts, Rav Yitzĉok said in the Sifri based on the verse[xxii] ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו על שתי המזוזות – this sets the precedent that the term Mezuzos is not plural, unless specified accordingly with a number preceding it.
Also, from there, Rabbi Yosi said, ‘the verse says וקשרתם and וכתבתם – just like the tying [of the Tefillin] is on the upper part [of the arm] so too the writing [the scroll of the Mezuzah] should be fixed on the upper [part of the doorpost]. The designated spot is from the ceiling down one third [of the total height of the doorpost]. One should not place it lower than a third of the way [θ] from the ceiling (of the doorway).
The Yerushalmi[xxiii] notes that the שמע should see the opening [of the doorway].[19] [However, in the Gemara Bavli] Rav said that if one made [the Mezuzah] like a נגר – a carpenter, it is פסול.
Rabeinu Shlomo explained this to mean lying down – horizontal [like pegs which are inserted horizontally into a beam of wood], while Rabeinu Yaakov explained it to mean standing up, but if they were resting like the Sefer Torah [ι] and like the Luĉos which were placed in the Aron[20] then it is Kosher. Furthermore, the RY said, ‘go learn from the Sefer Torah, when it is standing, everyone stands, and when it is sitting, everyone sits.’ [Which implies the Torah does not rest while standing – and the Mezuzah needs to be in a resting state in order to be affixed.]
The Gemara asked, but weren’t all the Mezuzos of Rebbe affixed like a carpenter? And the Gemara answers if affixed horizontally into the frame, then it is פסול, but if affixed at an angle [at a 45° upward angle] then it is Kosher. According to Rabeinu Yaakov’s opinion if it was affixed like they do with tent pegs – standing up vertically, then it would be פסול, but the Mezuzos of the house of Rebbe were not completely vertical, they were tilted like where the foot and the thigh meet, which is called the איסתוירא – the ankle [where the ankle joins to the bottom of the leg in the front is at an angle[21]] with regard to the Mitzvah of Chalitza[xxiv] [see positive Mitzvah 52] – slightly similar to the bent[22] letter נ. The world though is accustomed to following the explanation of Rabeinu Shlomo – and places the Mezuzah upright [λ].
We learnt in the Gemara[xxv] one who rents out his house to his friend, it is up to the tenant to affix the Mezuzah. And when he vacates the premises, he must not take the Mezuzah with him[23]. If the house belonged to a gentile, he should take it with him when he leaves. And we learnt elsewhere in Gemara[xxvi] a person who rents a house outside of the land of Israel, for the first thirty (30) days, he is not obligated[24] with the Mitzvah of Mezuzah – but thereafter he is. Meaning from after the first thirty (30) days he is considered to have an established residence. However, one who rents a house in Israel, is obligated to immediately affix the Mezuzah because of the obligation to settle the land of Israel. Furthermore, we [also] learnt [this] in the Yerushalmi[xxvii] one who rents a house from a non-Jew must affix the Mezuzah, but when he leaves, he may take it with him. But from a Jew, he may not do so [he may not take the Mezuzah with him.]
There are some who say that in the Yerushalmi there is a section which states that a city in which there are pigs – that city is exempt from the Mitzvah of Mezuzah. Rabeinu Yitzĉok said in the name of Rabbi Avrohom that one shouldn’t say such things – because he has checked it [the Gemara Yerushalmi] in its entirety and he didn’t find such a thing [μ]. And also, even if [the Yerushalmi] quotes some Midrash that says that, that would only apply for the doorway to the house where the pigs are, but for the [other] rooms [of that same structure] and its attics, those doorways would be obligated with the Mitzvah of Mezuzah – and even in the actual place where the pigs are, in the opening to that house, if the top third of the doorpost – where the Mezuzah goes – is above ten (10) Tefaĉim then he can place the Mezuzah there, but he was accustomed to cover [the Mezuzah] in the entranceway, and that is also my [the SMGs] custom to cover it. Similarly in rooms where the children are found [where they are filthy] there I cover the hole [where the Mezuzah is] with a little bit of wax.
A house that has only women[25] is obligated with the Mitzvah of Mezuzah, as we learnt from the Gemara.[xxviii]
We learnt in the Gemara, anyone who has Tefillin in his head and arm, Tzitzis on his garment, and a Mezuzah in his doorway – is strengthened so he won’t come to sin, as it says[xxix] והחוט המשלש לא במהרה ינתק,[26] and as it says[xxx] חנה מלאך ה’ סביב ליראיו ויחלצם.
[1] This is a quote from Rav Sheshes, who states, ‘anyone who doesn’t put on Tefillin violates eight (8) positive, whoever does not have Tzitzis on his garments violates five (5) positive, any Kohen who does not go to the platform [to perform the Kohanic blessing when called] violates three (3) positive, and whoever does not have a Mezuza on his doorway violates (2) positive.” Rashi explains the Tefillin and Tzitzis to refer to each mention / command in the Torah that requires the Mitzva to be performed, so presumably the same holds true with Mezuzah. As for the Kohen, presumably the number of commands regarding the Mitzva is three, one for each verse of the blessing. And for Mezuza there are two (2) mentions of וכתבתם as noted above.
Presumably, Rav Sheshes does not mean that two (2) of the six hundred and thirteen (613) Mitzvos are being violated. Rather he means that twice the Torah commanded us to perform this Mitzva, and each command has been violated.
It is interesting that the SMG quotes Rav Sheshes for the Mitzva of Tefillin and Mezuza, but not Tzitzis and Birkas Kohanim. Presumably because the reasoning for those two is different than the other two. Birkas Kohanim requires all three (3) verses recited or the Mitzva has not been done. With regard to Tzitzis, possibly he didn’t include the quote so as to not establish an absolute requirement for obtaining and donning Tzitzis when one doesn’t otherwise have such a garment. Although as we noted in the discussion, there is strong evidence that the Mitzva is exactly that.
[2] Although the Gemara Bavli also implies this, as we will see in the discussion [¢] re: Rabbi Evyasar, perhaps the SMG prefers to note it from the Yerushalmi since then, when quoting the verse as stated in the Yerushalmi, he would not himself have to use שירטוט, since as the SMG notes, the verse is not written in correct order – unlike the Bavli who did write it in correct order. Another reason to quote the Yerushalmi vs the Bavli, since it is just as likely to assume Rabbi Evyasar disagreed with the requirement for שירטוט as to assume he wasn’t aware of the requirement, while it is unlikely one would come to that conclusion from the Yerushalmi since Rabbi Mana actively reversed the order of the verse.
[3] Rabbi Mana quoted the first two words in proper order since one may write two words without שירטוט but then reversed the order of the final three words. Which implies that שירטוט is required only when quoting verse, and when it is lacking, the verse may not be quoted – at least not for more than two (2) words.
[4] It would seem that there is no stated requirement to roll the Mezuzah when installing it. Theoretically, it would seem that it need not be rolled – except for two reasons:
- as noted above, the space requirement on the sides are derived from the need to roll it properly, and accordingly it is not an illogical leap to assume that the rolling itself is required if the space to do so is required.
- Secondly, as the SMG will note later, there seems to be an opinion in the Yerushalmi [Rabbi Ze’ura in the name of Shmuel] which is countered both on location and in the Bavli as to whether the שמע should be facing the doorway or not. If we were to unroll the Mezuzah and place it so the script is visible, that would be establishing the Halaĉa like the Yerushalmi, which might not be how we rule. With the writing covered, it is not clear which way the שמע is facing – and like Schrodinger’s Mezuzah, perhaps it is facing both directions simultaneously.
[5] See further in the SMG when he quotes the Yerushalmi as stating that the Mezuzah’s were rolled from bottom up.
[6] The system of exchanging letters is part of the system of Gematria – in which there is an intrinsic connection, albeit more of a superficial connection, between words with similar numerical values. The reason for this is because Hebrew is a language which is used by the creator, and the assignment of words to specific meanings is not an arbitrary one (as nothing divine is arbitrary). Therefore, for example, the word אהבה and אחד share a connection, as both have the numerical value of thirteen (13). The connection here is that only with the emotional attribute of love אהבה can two beings come together as one אחד.
A similar mechanism is in place with the system of secondary lettering. The order of the letters is not arbitrary, and the pattern in which a word is developed in Hebrew is specific. Words that contain the same pattern but are further down the alphabet have a relation to the source words. I do not wish to spell out G-d Almighty’s name, but with a simple chart, one can see that כוזו במוכסז כוזו spells out ‘G-d Almighty our Almighty G-d Almighty’.
[7] Unlike the custom of some people with regard to decorating the Megillah or קמיעות – amulets. Since one of the ostensible purposes of the Mezuzah is for protection, adding to it by invoking the names of angels as “additional” protection is no longer decorative but is now adding to the Mitzva. Accordingly, there is otherwise no such prohibition, for example if one wanted to embroider decoration on the curtain to the Aron in the Shul.
There are those who add a separate reason as to why angels should not be named in full – as their names incorporate the name of the divine, e.g. Miĉa-el and Gavri-el. Naming them in their official capacity is like spelling out the name of G-d Almighty.
[8] See footnotes on Tefillin, [positive Mitzvos 21 & 22] for a discussion on the formatting of paragraphs / Parshas.
Closed or Open Parsha’s refer to how they start. [Closed] These can also be viewed as being a method of transitioning from the prior Parsha to the next; where a Closed transition implies a simple break in between the two (2) Parshas, but not necessarily as clear cut as an Open transition.
[Open] Here the Parshas are written without being transitive from whatever came before in the Torah. The custom is that the paragraph of שמע is written flush with the right margin – as if it followed an Open transition, while the paragraph of והיה אם שמע is written with an indentation from the right margin – as if it followed a Closed transition – to ensure that this occurs, the first Parsha ends on the line previous with a space for only three (3) letters (which is filled in on the reverse with G-d Almighty’s name שד-י). Since the requirement is nine (9) letters, the next Parsha has to start with an indentation.
[9] In measuring the space required the term ‘letters’ refers to regular sized letters, excluding the letters וגנזי.
[10] We can determine from here that according to the opinion that the measurement is one of three (3) letters, those letters must be the size of standard block letters, i.e., not including letters like י and ג, because if it used the measurement of the thin letters, then there would be insufficient room to write in the space on the back of the parchment the three (3) letter name of G-d Almighty.
[11] Meaning the total square footage is not the defining measurement, since it is possible to have room that is eight by two – although the square footage is the same, it is not obligated in the Mitzva.
The determination of four by four being the minimum size is based on the concept that a Mezuzah is only obligatory for a living space. And anything less than four amos is too small for a person to properly lie down in. This is stated in Gem. Eiruvin 48a – a person is on average three amos and, according to Rabbi Meir, needs an additional amah for stretching out his arms above his head. Rabbi Yehudah adds the fourth amah in order for the person to maneuver to take something from past his feet and place it under his head [presumably the person stores the pillows and other accoutrements at the foot of the bed when not in use].
[12] He actually listed a seventh gate even after stating there were only six (6) – that of the Median gate which is an arch. Rava called him out on this, and he noted that the Median gate is a matter of argument, since Rabbi Meir obligates it.
[13] Appx 31 inches. See Denouement for a discussion on measurements.
[14] Different than private gateways in that they lead to a space shared by many private domiciles.
[15] The Gemara also includes here something called ‘a women’s house’. See below.
It seems to me that the SMG did not include it in his listing here since in itself the designation of ‘Women’s House’ has no bearing on whether it is or is not obligated in Mezuzah.
[16] As Rav Huna’s usage of the study hall was solely in the domain of the sanctified. Other people though, even if their general intent is to study, are unable to maintain the level of concentration and focus necessary, and accordingly, even a moment of daydreaming or doing anything mundane would make the entrance there a mundane event.
[17] Cities used to be design where the entrance to a small community from the public through fare passed into a shared courtyard from which the private residences would be accessible. Many dwelling places in Samarkand Uzbekistan are still set up in this fashion. A modern equivalent would be the common area lobby of a condominium building – the entrance to which would be the gateway the Gemara is talking about.
[18] The SMG does not determine whether this applies to a door that is required to be pulled or pushed open. Rashi, on the first time the word משקוף is used Shemos 12:7, notes that the ‘משקוף is [on] the upper part of the door, against which the door strikes when it is being closed. Lintel in French. The term שקיפה refers to striking, like the term in Vayikra 26:36 קול עלה נדף (which Rashi notes there is the sound of one leaf striking another {rustling}) which the Targum renders as שקיף etc. [Rashi brings several other examples where the Aramaic term for striking is rendered using a variation on שקיף]. It would seem the door would strike the lintel, causing it to stop in place. Although in terms of security it would seem to make more sense for a door to open outward, allowing it to press against the doorposts and lintel in the event of an attempted invasion, in practice it seems doors opened inward and were prevented from being sucked out by changing air pressure by the lintel. A bar would have been placed to prevent the doors from being forced in. Placing doors from the inside in this fashion allows for the use of primitive construction, without the need for hinges.
[19] It would appear the meaning of this is that the scroll would be rolled from bottom up. Presumably, this followed the opinion that the Mezuzah is affixed horizontally.
[20] The Aron was 2.5 Amos long, 1.5 Amos wide, and 1.5 Amos tall. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir argue as to the size of the Amos used in the construction of the Mishkan and its utensils; Rabbi Yehudah says the Amah had five (5) Tefachim, Rabbi Meir said it had six (6). Therefore, according to Rabbi Yehudah, the Aron was twelve and a half (12.5) Tefachim long, and seven and a half (7.5) wide and seven and a half (7.5) tall. According to Rabbi Meir, the Aron was fifteen (15) Tefachim long, nine (9) wide and nine (9) tall.
Gem. Bava Basra 14a defines the Luĉos as being six (6) Tefachim squared and three (3) Tefachim thick. Thus, according to Rabbi Yehudah, the Luĉos were placed one next to each other, on top of the broken set from the first Luĉos, making the Luĉos take up twelve (12) of the twelve and a half (12.5) Tefachim in length, and six (6) of the seven and a half (7.5) in width. According to Rabbi Meir, they would have taken been placed the same way, but with more room to spare (for the Sefer Torah). According to both opinions in Gemara Bavli, there would not have been room to place all four (4) Luĉos – the broken first set, and complete second set – side by side, and the broken set was placed underneath the complete set.
The Yerushalmi though states that the Luĉos were placed side by side along the length of the Aron using the side of the Luĉos that was only three (3) Tefachim thick, with the Sefer Torah placed sideways in the space between the Luĉos and one of the walls.
The Gemara Bavli presumably does not entertain the possibility of lining of the four (4) Luĉos in such a fashion, as that would result in the lettering not facing up. The Gemara Yerushalmi though presumably does state that as what actually occurred, since the Luĉos could be read from any direction. Either way – the Luĉos while in the Aron, in a state of rest, were not standing (or sitting) like they were while being held by Moshe.
Perhaps this is the source of the difference in custom between Ashkenazi and Sephardic customs as to how the Sefer Torah is written. The Sephardic custom is that there is no difference between how the Torah is placed while resting, or while being read – like the Gemara Yerushalmi, the letters in the Luĉos can be read from any direction – with no difference between how they were in the Aron and how they were while held by Moshe. The Ashkenazi tradition though has the Sefer Torah standing while resting and laying down while in use – like the Luĉos (as described by Gemara Bavli) which were laying in the Aron vs while being held upright by Moshe.
According to both the Gemara Bavli and Yerushalmi, this is the only place in which the Sefer Torah is stored lying down – either on its back or its side.
[21] This example is chosen because the foot can flex anywhere from a 90° angle at its resting state to almost a 180° angle for people like ballerinas. Meaning the exact angle is not important so long as it is not installed straight up – any tilt is sufficient.
[22] The back of the letter slopes at an angle. The body of the Nun attaches to the middle of the head and slopes backward (to the right) so that the bottom right of the letter lines up with the top right of the head.
[23] Since the new tenant might not affix a Mezuzah, removing it is the equivalent of setting a stumbling block for the new tenant to possibly mess up. The Gemara notes a story about someone who violated this precept and ended up burying his wife and two sons.
[24] It is unclear if the reason for this is perhaps because we can’t trust the non-Jewish courts to uphold the laws of tenancy and the validity of the lease agreement, or if it is because the Jewish people could, heaven forbid, be expelled at any time without a moment’s notice by the gentile governments and people – as has happened from most countries in the world.
[25] Presumably, this is a reference to the time period when the Jewish people were careful with Tum’ah and Taharah. In those days the wealthy would have a separate house with its own bedding and utensils etc which she could use while menstruating so that none of the regular utensils and bedding would become Tamay. The Tur [286] clarifies that is included in those houses which are obligated depending on its use. If women bathe there, then it would be excluded in the requirement for a Mezuzah. But if they go there to don jewelry or makeup (like a salon) than it would be obligated.
[26] Rashi comments that the three-fold string referred to is the learning of Torah, Mishna and good manners. He notes that there are other methods to interpret the verse, but those do not follow the context.
[i] Devarim 11:20 & 6:9 (w var. spelling lacking a letter ו – see Rashi)
[ii] Gem. Menaĉos 28a
[iii] Gem. Menaĉos 44a
[iv] Gem. Menaĉos 32b
[v] Gem. Gittin 6b
[vi] Yer. Megillah 3:2
[vii] Iyov 8:7. The correct wording is והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד. Practical Halaĉa allows for any type of lined ruling (even the invisible ones of a computer program) for regular writings – which is why I and all those who have written Sefarim before me, have no problems quoting verses in full.
[viii] Yad Hachazaka Hilchos Mezuzah etc 1:11
[ix] Gem. Megillah 16a
[x] Ester 9:30
[xi] Tosefos הא Gem. Menaĉos 32b
[xii] Gem. Megillah 19a
[xiii] Unable to source this quote.
[xiv] Devarim 13:1
[xv] Gem. Menaĉos 31b
[xvi] Yer. Megillah 1:9
[xvii] Meseĉet Sofrim 1:14
[xviii] Rashi פעמים ביובל Gem. Yoma 11a
[xix] Gem. Sukkah 3a & Yoma 11b
[xx] Gem. Menaĉos 33b
[xxi] Gem. Yoma 11b
[xxii] Shemos 12:7
[xxiii] Yer. Megillah 4:12
[xxiv] Gem. Yevamos 103a
[xxv] Gem. Bava Metziya 102a
[xxvi] Gem. Menaĉos 44a
[xxvii] Yer. Megillah 4:12
[xxviii] Gem. Yoma 11b
[xxix] Kohelet 4:12
[xxx] Tehillim 34:8
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] Tosefos in Gem. Gitin writes that in writing a verse in a letter in the post – one need not do so on ruled parchment.
[β] Meaning the reason the SMG differentiates is because a Megillah is comparable to a Mezuzah because it contains the Truth of the Torah, which is the main reason why ruled lines are required. [As to why a ruled line is associated with the Truth of Torah], this is because a ruled line represents truth and straightness, however with regard to working the leather, which has not been associated with the Truth of Torah, in that aspect a Megillah might not be similar to a Mezuzah [and would thus not need proper intent], as was the conclusion.
[γ] According to this opinion [where the words of the line end with כימי השמים] the result is the second-to-last line ends with השמים under which is written על הארץ – which hints at heaven being above the earth. And according to the opinion where the word השמים starts off the final line, space should be inserted in the middle of the line so that the words על הארץ are as far away [as possible]. Which hints at how heaven and earth are far apart.
It appears to me[1] [the Maharshal] that the reason for hinting at this is because the Mezuzah is coming to save [a person] and provide longevity, and to separate a person from sin. As the verse[i] says כי כגבה שמים על הארץ, גבר חסדו על יראיו. This [verse, and specifically the term חסדו] relates to longevity, as it says in the verse[ii] כי טוב חסדך מחיים.[2] [And according to the other opinion as to placing both heaven and earth on the same line, but distant from each other] It also says in the verse[iii] כרחק מזרח ממערב, הרחיק ממנו את פשעינו, this measurement of distancing heaven from earth [on the same line] is to separate a person from sin.
One opinion holds that the space inserted hints at longevity[3], and one hold it hints at distancing from sin, and being saved from sin.
[δ] It would seem that the reason for this is out of concern that the Mezuzah might have degraded. While with Tefillin this is not a concern since the covering proves it [as the covering is sewn shut, any breach in the cover would be visible][4]. Also, a Mezuzah degrades commonly as it is exposed to rain and the wall being wet.
[ε] משקוף is the doorposts standing on the side, and תיקרא (or תקרה) is the beam placed on the two doorposts. Some places though refer to a תקרה as the doorpost. This is the language of the Tosefos:
‘תקרה means the entranceway which hangs over from above and isn’t flush, rather [the archway is formed] with one stone inward and one outward. In that manner, there is no overhang and no doorpost, just stones that stick out like teeth of a wall. Similar to this in the chapters of Eiruvin regarding a sukkah. As for what Rashi explained that ‘this is a doorway without an overhang because there was no ceiling.’ That is difficult to understand. Why would it be worse than the gateways to a courtyard which are obligated in Mezuzah (even though the courtyard is open to the sky) – as we learned in the first chapter of Gemara Yoma.’
[ζ] Country border gates means there are those countries[5] completely surrounded by a wall and have only one gate through which people come and go – as we find in the lands of the ‘converts’[6].
[η] In the Yerushalmi, Rav Ĉanina’s Beis Midrash had a Mezuzah.
The Maharam of Rottenburg made a Mezuzah for his Beis Midrash, and said that before he made one, there was an evil spirit [in the building] which would bother him when he would nap in the afternoon, but after he placed the Mezuzah, it left.
[θ] According to the Rambam and the Tur: the upper limit on how close it can be placed to the lintel is one (1) Tefaĉ away at least.
It appears to me [the Maharshal] that when Rabbi Yosi provided the measurement based on height – he was not coming to argue with Rabbi Yehuda who said previously that it needs to be at least one (1) Tefaĉ away from the lintel. Rather, the area that is kosher for Mezuzah placement is [as much as] a full Amah – so long as one places a minimum distance of a Tefaĉ from the ground, on this Rabbi Yosi argues and says this applies only to the height. But he (Rabbi Yehuda) admits that the minimum requirement is at least a Tefaĉ from the lintel is needed because otherwise the Mezuzah would not be on the doorposts but [would be considered part of] the lintel.
[ι] meaning that in the days of Rabeinu Tam, it was common[7] to lay the Sefer Torah down inside the ark.
[κ] However, according to Rashi’s explanation, the meaning of כסיכסא is like a peg[8] which is hammered into the wall is Pasul. But if it was like a איסתורי which[9] connects the thigh and the foot, then it is kosher – but the best is when it is standing upright, and the custom of the world is to follow Rashi. [λ] However, according to the Tur, someone who is careful and would fulfil the Mitzvah of Mezuzah according to both opinions [which is generally considered ‘best practice’] would establish it half standing and half lying.
It appears to me [the Maharshal] that when placing it lying down [the word] שמע should be toward the house, and [the words] על הארץ should be on the outside.
[μ] meaning the people who hear this accept it as fact[10], but this is not actually in the Yerushalmi, and they have made a mistake.
[1] Partially based on the quote of Rav Chisda in Menachos 31b which Maharshal builds upon.
[2] Building on the Maharshal, there are three verses in Tehillim which uses the term טוב חסדך, each corresponding to an aspect of the purpose of the Mezuzah, as noted by the Maharshal. The other two are: [Tehillim 109:21] כי טוב חסדך הצילני – which hints at the being saved from sin, provided by the Mitzva of Mezuzah and [Tehillim 69:17] ענני ה’ כי טוב חסדך – which hints at the salvation [from worldly troubles], provided by the Mitzva of Mezuzah.
[3] Although equalized by the Maharshal here, the custom follows those who place the words on a separate line. Possibly because doing so hints at all three things, as noted previously.
[4] Although he offers this explanation, the Maharshal is not fully comfortable with it – and presumably Tefillin should be checked more often than the minimum.
[5] These are what we now call city-states. There are only a couple of those left; Vatican City, and Monaco.
[6] It is unclear as to what converts the Maharshal is referring to. Perhaps he is referring to the Saxon settlers that migrated into Europe during the Middle Ages and built their own city-states. Perhaps something like the town of Mediaș. He might also be referring to itinerant travelers who travelled in groups like the Romani or Gypsy – and would settle for a while in a single place, perhaps surrounding their wagons with temporary walls.
[7] Since the original Sefer Torah was laying in the Aron, it would seem natural that the ones we use should also be laying down when placed away. Presumably this custom changed when it became common for a community to have multiple Sefer Torahs, resulting in not enough room in the ark. One obviously can’t stack a Sefer Torah one on top of the other, so they must have decided to stand them up.
[8] Horizontally.
[9] Vertically, but at a slight angle – from ankle to the bottom of the heel is called the איסתורי.
[10] This is why it is critical that sources must be identified and traced back to their origins. One cannot rely on those who came before because it is possible that they themselves had relied on someone else. Especially these days when so much is available online.
[i] Tehillim 103:11
[ii] Tehillim 63:4
[iii] Tehillim 103:12
RASHI
On the verse[i] in the paragraph of שמע, Rashi notes that the word מזוזות is written without a letter ו which hints that the Mezuzah need be placed on only one (1) doorpost.[1] And on the word ובשעריך, Rashi notes that this includes gateways into various types of courtyards.
[1] Unlike the Gemara which learns from a בנין אב that the word מזוזות is both singular and plural. Furthermore, the Gemara Menaĉos 34a derives the rule אין ריבוי אחר ריבוי אלא למעט that comes to exclude – in this case it excludes a doorpost.
Since Rashi states that the requirement of placing the Mezuzah on only one (1) doorpost is learnt from the missing letter, we can assume that the choice of which letter was deliberate, and hints that the Mezuzah need be placed on the right doorpost. Possibly because:
- From the perspective of the Torah, the remaining letter ו is on the right.
- The normal spelling of the word places the letter ו (if there is only one) in between the two letters ז. Here the Mezuzah is moved to the right of the letter which represents the doorpost – the letter ו.
Another thing that the missing letter ו hints at is, the missing letter is actually a vowel, which is replaced by a Shuruk – which has the same sound but lacks the letter representation. The Shuruk is written as three dots, placed at an angle – which possibly hints at the correct placement of the Mezuzah.
[i] Devarim 6:9
Discussion by SMS
[λ] it seems incredible that with millions of Mezuzahs on doorposts over thousands of years, each being placed the same way, and yet there is a recorded argument as to whether the Mezuzah should be placed upright or lying down.
Furthermore, it would seem that the Ashkenazic Halaĉic conclusion follows neither of the accepted opinions, but instead we tilt the Mezuzah. Instead of arguing theory, why didn’t Rabeinu Tam simply go look at his doorpost and at the doorpost of his grandfather to see how the Mezuzah is placed? In the language of the Gemara – פוק חזי.
The argument that this would somehow be disrespectful to the Mezuzah if the Mezuzah was placed standing seems fantastical at best. 1) as the Maharshal notes [ι] that placing the Sefrei Torah in the Aron lying down was the custom in the time of Rabeinu Tam – and yet we find no ruling requiring the Torah scrolls to be tilted when they are in the Aron. Why would he be considered with the honor of the Mezuzah but not that of the Sefer Torah, and 2) How is laying something down as opposed to standing it upright embarrassing. And if standing the Mezuzah is the proper method of doing the Mitzvah, how can it possibly be considered a non-respectful position for the Mezuzah. And furthermore, leaning it at an angle is considered respectful?
—
[$] Does a trapdoor [in the ceiling – to the attic / floor – to the basement] leading to a different room count as an entrance for the purpose of obligating one to affix a Mezuzah?
Perhaps from the Gemara’s description of a ‘desolate entranceway’ [which according to one opinion means] it lacks a ceiling, one might determine that when descending into the basement via trapdoor, the floor in front of the person becomes the lintel or the ceiling, which would then make it a non-desolate entranceway (and obligated in the Mitzvah of Mezuzah).
The Noda b’Yehudah[i] was asked this question regarding horizontal vs vertical doorways. He answered:
I [the Noda b’Yehudah] know that a door like this has no connection to Mezuzah, and the doorposts when fashioned like this are not called Mezuzos, while the Torah said על מזוזות. The proof from this I [the Noda b’Yehudah] say is from the words of Rashi[ii].
Rashi describes the Gemara as referring to a second story attic in which different people (than the bottom floor) are living. The entrance to the second story is through a hole in the floor / ceiling, accessed by stairs – but the people of the bottom floor erect partitions around the foot of the stairs, with a door to prevent the people of the top floor from entering their house whenever they wish. And the people of the top floor erect partitions around the landing at the top of the stairs to prevent the people of the bottom floor from entering their attic whenever they wish.
Theoretically, it is strange as to how Rashi would prove that both the people of the attic built the partition, and the people of the bottom floor built their partition – wouldn’t it be sufficient if only one group built the partition with a double door, one pulling in (which the attic people can lock) and one extending outward (which the house people can lock). [The implied necessity for Rashi to state that both parties have constructed surrounding walls implies that the hole in the floor or ceiling is not considered an entrance, and therefore, if only one party had constructed the walls and door, the entrance would not lead to anything. It is only when both sides of the hole have a door that either door leads to somewhere where people are living.]
Another proof can be brought from the Gemara[iii] which states, ‘just like a Mezuzah is standing, so too the door must be standing.’
The Gemara is talking about how to perform the ritual of piercing the ear of a slave and is coming here to exclude the ability to pierce the ear of the slave on a dismounted door. The word דלת in itself implies any door, even if no longer connected. But the addition of the word מזוזה implies the door has to be standing – The door must be connected to a doorframe and must be standing.
One shouldn’t ask that this only excludes a doorpost that was completely separated, since the Gemara should then have said, ‘just like the doorposts are connected, so too the door must be connected.’ Since the Gemara talks instead talks about the door being a ‘standing’ door… And as Rashi explained that ‘if the Mezuzah is not standing, it is not called a Mezuzah.’ From which we learn a Mezuzah does not apply when the doorway is horizontal. That is my [the Noda b’Yehudah’s] humble opinion, and as [I am] very busy, I [the Noda b’Yehuda] responded in short.
When the Torah first[iv] talks about the piercing of the ear of the slave, the Torah writes והיגישו אל הדלת או אל המזוזה. Rashi quotes אל הדלת או אל המזוזה and says you might think that one may use the doorpost to pierce his ear, that is why the Torah later says[v] ונתת באזנו ובדלת (with no mention of the doorpost) – in the door and not in the doorpost. So why does the verse include אל המזוזה – to teach you that just like the doorposts are standing, the door must also be standing (hung on the hinges).
It would seem clear that at least as far as the piercing of the ear of the slave, the requirement is that the door through which the ear will be pierced must be both hung on a doorpost, and upright. [see positive Mitzvos 83 and 84]
But does this carry over into the laws of the Mezuzah? I would suggest that they are not fully comparable:
- A Mezuzah requires not just two (2) doorposts, but also a lintel – while there is no indication that for the piercing of the slave’s ear a lintel is needed.
- A Mezuzah is affixed on an entrance, provided the entrance is the correct shape, (and the rooms involved are the correct dimensions and for the correct purposes) even when there is no door, while the piercing of the slave’s ear can only be accomplished with the door.
- If the word Mezuzah could only be used when referring to something upright, then there would be no argument as to whether the scroll (which is colloquially called a Mezuzah) should be affixed upright, or horizontal (the custom of many is to tilt it so that it is both upright and horizontal).
It would seem that the main criterion of the Mitzvah of Mezuzah is, that it be affixed on an entranceway to an appropriate space, presumably where the entranceway is upright.
As to the proof based on why Rashi would explain the case of the attic-family as one where they built two sets of partitions around the entrance – this can be countered based on Rashi’s next comment, where he quotes the Gemara ‘if they have two entrances’ and he says, ‘one (1) in the house, and one (1) in the attic – as I explained.’
The reason Rashi wrote that the Gemara is talking about such a strange case was to explain the second half of the Beraissa the Gemara is discussing; where there are two (2) doors in this attic entrance, and therefore there are two (2) Mezuzos required. If Rashi hadn’t come up with such a scenario, the comment in the Beraissa that there could be two (2) doors would not make sense. Because if there were two (2) doors part of the same doorway, only one (1) Mezuzah would be needed, and if there were two (2) doors part of two (2) different doorways, then the requirement for a Mezuzah for each would be obvious.
As for the proof from the Gemara’s discussion on the piercing of the ear of the slave; To test this idea that this is comparable to the laws of Mezuzah, I would put forth the question: What would the Halaĉa be regarding whether a Mezuzah is needed in the case of a drawbridge? In such a structure, the entrance way only functions when the door is not upright but is in fact fully horizontal. The Gemara’s comparison in the case of the slave having his ear pierced of requiring a door to be upright because the doorposts are upright would imply that a drawbridge may not be used to pierce the slave’s ear – which is understood, as we do not force slaves to bend over like that. But extending that ruling to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah would mean the castle has no Mezuzah on its main entrance! Granted such castles were the homes of non-Jews historically, but if a Jew owned such a structure, would that really be the case that the main – and possibly only entrance – with two doorposts and a lintel, would not be required to have a Mezuzah? Of course not. Therefore, I do not believe we can determine the rules of Mezuzah from that Gemara.
Therefore, I do not believe we can derive from the proofs brought forth in his[1] answer that a horizontal doorway is exempt. He did note that he hadn’t expounded on this sufficiently, so we do not know what else he might have brought in response. Regardless though, as for whether a Mezuzah is actually required or not can be derived direct from the פשט:
Rashi on the exodus[vi] notes that the Mezuzos are the upright posts[2]. There is no reason for Rashi to provide the explanation that doorposts are upright, it had no bearing on understanding the requirement of the Jewish people to place the blood of the Korban Pesaĉ on their doorway, and if such a question arose in the year 2,448 regarding a horizontal doorway, the commentary of Rashi would not have been available to them to seek the answer, nor is the actual determination of that one-time commandment as to whether it applies to horizontal doorways or not relevant to us. The only reason Rashi would have for establishing that doorposts are upright is in relation to the Mitzvah of Mezuzah, that only doorways that are upright – like those described in the exodus – are obligated.
As to the drawbridge, when the door is down, it is no longer a door and now functions as a bridge. The doorposts though remain upright – and thus this becomes a doorway-without-a-door which does require a Mezuzah.
—
[¢] The ruling in the Gemara quoted by the BHG was issued in connection with Rav Yosef’s comment regarding whether Rabbi Evyasar could be relied upon;
since Rabbi Evyasar sent a letter to Rav Yehuda in which he wrote that those who ascend from Babylon to the land of Israel fulfill the verse[vii] ויתנו הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו.[3] This letter was written without lines [even though it quoted a partial verse]. And Rabbi Yitzĉok stated two words may be written, but three (3) words may not be written [without having ruled the parchment]. And in a Braissa we learned that three words may be written, but four may not be written.
To which Abaya answered, ‘are we to say that anyone who does not know the quote of Rabbi Yitzĉok is not a great man? Maybe we could say such a thing regarding something that depends on Halaĉic inference, but with regard to a tradition, he simply hadn’t heard that tradition. Furthermore, Rabbi Evyasar was one whose “master” agreed with him, [as we learnt regarding] the verse[viii] ותזנה עליו פילגשו.[4] [regarding why the woman, previously a concubine, decided to prostitute herself,] Rabbi Evyasar stated a fly was found in the food, while Rabbi Yonason stated a hair was found. [In either case she was blamed and treated poorly by her man, which caused her to decide to prostitute herself instead.]
Rabbi Evyasar subsequently came across Eliyahu and he [Rabbi Evyasar] asked him [Eliyahu] ‘What is G‑d Almighty currently doing.’ [Eliyahu] answered ‘He [G‑d Almighty] is studying the concubine in Giv’ah.’ [Rav Evyasar] asked, ‘and what is he [G‑d Almighty] saying [about the case].’ [Eliyahu] answered, ‘[He is saying] Evyasar my son has said this, and Yonason my son has said that.’ [As if G‑d Almighty was unsure and was debating which was correct.] [Rabbi Evyasar] responded, ‘חס ושלום! Is it possible that there can be doubt in heaven.’ [Eliyahu] answered, ‘both [opinions] are the Words of the Living G‑d Almighty, a fly had been found, but the guy didn’t care. And then a hair was found, and he cared.’
Rav Yehuda explained[5], the fly was on the plate of food, and the hair was a pubic hair. The fly caused him to be disgusted, but the hair was dangerous.[6] Although some say both [hair and fly] were found in the food, a fly is not preventable, but [the presence of] a hair is negligent.
[Based on this experience] Rav Ĉisda stated, ‘no one should ever make his family scared of him, since due to the concubine of Giv’ah whose husband caused her to be scared as a consequence of which tens of thousands of Jews were killed.’
Since Rabbi Evyasar was quoted by G‑d Almighty, obviously he is a great person, and his being unaware of the statement of Rabbi Yitzĉok is not something we can hold against him.
In looking at the Gemara, besides the obvious asides related to whether pubic hair on a woman really causes infertility, and the entire issue of the war captive and Tamar’s rape – the question related to the issue at hand, whether one may or may not write without having indented lines on parchment is one that needs to be examined:
- If the Halaĉa requires lining parchment, how is it possible that Rabbi Evyasar didn’t know, or at least his correspondent, Rav Yehuda, should have written back to him notifying him of the requirement.
- Since the Halaĉa requires lining the parchment, why is there the ability to write either two or three words without doing so.
- How is it that Rabbi Yitzĉok is arguing with the Braissa and the Gemara does not discuss which is the Halaĉa.
- Why does the BHG (and the SMG) take the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĉok over that of the Braissa – is it simply a stringency that was adopted?
[1] May the Noda b’Yehuda forgive me
[2] He also notes, the Mashkof is the lintel which the door strikes when it is being closed. Apparently, doors were not sized with exactness, and the lintel was there to stop the door from swinging too far in the wrong direction.
[3] Rashi explains the application of the verse is that they would leave their wives and children behind with no source of livelihood and would abandon them to go be holy in Israel. Doing so would force their wives and daughters into prostitution as the only means of supporting themselves.
[4] The verse discusses the start of the famous prostitute in Giv’ah who was gang-raped to death and as a consequence of which the first Jewish civil war broke out to destroy those who would do such a thing, and the Jewish people nearly wiped out the entire tribe of Binyamin in vengeance.
[5] Tosefos notes that the sages were discussing the term ותזנה which could be from the root word מזון or זנות.
[6] Rashi comments that retaining pubic hair is dangerous as it can cause infertility. [Presumably that was a superstition in those days, or an act of witchcraft.] And when the man became angry at finding her with pubic hair, she ran away from him.
Tosefos notes that this must not have been a Jewess by birth, but must have been a maiden captured in war, since in the Gemara [Sanhedrin 21a] we learn that Jewish women do not have armpit or pubic hair.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin is talking about why Amnon hated Tamar after he raped her [Shmuel II 13:15], either a pubic hair became stuck on his penis, or she stuck one on his penis and he became infertile. The Gemara derives from the fact that she even had pubic hair that Tamar was not a Jewess by birth since Rava derived from the verse [Yeĉezkel 16:14] ויצא לך שם בגוים ביפיך כי כליל הוא. Rashi on the verse comments that the word כליל comes from the root word כל [meaning Jewish women are beautiful head to toe], and כליל is also a term for a type of crown. (Presumably, its use to mean hairless is that there is nothing [i.e. hair] extraneous there.) It was this occurrence that caused the sages to decree that a man may not be alone with a single woman, lest he come to rape her. [See negative Mitzva 126]
[i] Noda b’Yehudah Mahadura Tinyana – Question 184
[ii] Rashi לול פתוח Gem. Menaĉos 34a
[iii] Gem. Kiddushin 22b
[iv] Shemos 21:6
[v] Devarim 15:17
[vi] Shemos 12:7
[vii] Yoel 4:3
[viii] Shoftim 19:2
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- מזוזות – doorposts
- משקוף – lintel
- תקרה – beam
Historical Aside
The Gemara[i] relates the following:
Unkelos the son of Klonikus the son of the sister of Titus[1] wanted to convert [to Judaism]. He went to a necromancer to seek out the advice[2] of the dead, who first summoned the spirit of Titus.
Unkelos asked Titus, ‘who is considered important in that world [the afterlife]?’ Titus answered, ‘the Jews.’
Unkelos followed up and asked, ‘should I join them?’ Titus answered, ‘they have many commandments, and you will not be able to fulfil them. Instead, it would be better to go out to battle against them – and you will become a head [of state] as it says in the verse[ii] היו צריה לראש. Anyone who causes trouble for the Jewish people becomes a head [of state].’
Unkleos asked him, ‘what has been your sentence?’ Titus answered him, ‘That which I decreed upon myself: every day his ashes are gathered [and reconstituted], he is judged – and they burn him and scatter his ashes.’
Next the spirit of Bill’am was summoned.
Unkelos asked Bill’am, ‘who is considered important in that world [the afterlife]?’ Bill’am answered, ‘the Jews.’
Unkelos followed up and asked, ‘should I join them?’ Bill’am answered[3] with a verse[iii], ‘לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם.’
Unkleos asked him, ‘what has been your sentence?’ Bill’am answered him, ‘he is boiled in semen.[4]’
Next the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth was summoned.
Unkelos asked Jesus, ‘who is considered important in that world [the afterlife]?’ Jesus answered, ‘the Jews.’
Unkelos followed up and asked, ‘should I join them?’ Jesus answered, ‘seek out their welfare, but do not harm them – as those who harm the Jewish people are like those who poke the apple of [G‑d Almighty’s] eye, as it says[iv], ‘כי הנגע בכם נגע בבבת עינו.’
Unkleos asked him, ‘what has been your sentence?’ Jesus answered him, ‘he is boiled in excrement, since the master said[v], anyone who mocks the words of the sages is judged in boiling excrement.’
Whether because of this advice, or in spite of it, Unkelos decided to convert. The Gemara[vi] relates that Caesar was unhappy with this decision and sent soldiers to apprehend him.
However, Unkelos led them in a theological discussion with such convincing arguments that the soldiers sent to apprehend him instead renounced their pagan ways and refused to carry out the order.
Caeser sent a second troop, but this time instructed them not to initiate a conversation with Unkelos. Nevertheless, Unkelos managed to convince them by initiating the conversation as he was leaving, explaining to them that in Jewish theology service to Hashem is for the benefit of the individual not because G‑d Almighty needs anything from the person. In fact, the opposite is true, G‑d Almighty provides for the person even though they are only servants.
Caeser sent a third troop, and this time instructed them not to speak at all to him. They obeyed and grabbed Unkelos to hustle him out. As he was leaving, Unkelos reached out and touched the Mezuzah. Overcome with curiosity, they asked him about it, and he explained that unlike a human king, which has to hire guards outside while he sits in the palace, Hashem lets his people sit at home while he stands guard outside, as it says[vii] ה’ ישמר צאתך ובואך מעתה ועד עולם. They too converted and Caeser gave up trying to capture him.
[1] The Vilna Gaon says that she was the sister of Andrianos Caeser, not Titus.
[2] From the way the Gemara relates the story, it would seem that this was not an actual conversation like the one recorded when Shaul summoned Shmuel – who was identified [Shmuel I 28:7] as a master of אוב. Rather it seems to be more like a list of questions was provided to the necromancer, along with a list of people to contact, who then provided the responses to the client. The Gemara identifies this person as a בנגידא, which Rashi translates as אוב. However, that appears to be a general term, since it is also used in Gemara [Shabbos 152b] where the Gemara asks how is it possible that Shmuel’s soul was summoned since as a righteous person, he ascended to heaven and was no longer tied to the body. The Gemara answered it was possible since it was within the first twelve months after death, during which the soul is still somewhat attached to the body. Here though, Unkelos was summoning people who had been dead for many years, so presumably they would use a different method.
[3] Being the evil soul he was, he provided an answer which on the surface was designed to convince Unkelos not to convert. Actually though, the verse however speaks to the Jewish people being warned against attempting to make peace with their enemies.
[4] This was an appropriate punishment for attempting to get the Jews to sin by having sex with the daughters of Moav [who then used the semen for idolatrous purposes].
[i] Gem. Gittin 56b
[ii] Ayĉa 1:5
[iii] Devarim 23:7
[iv] Zeĉarya 2:12
[v] Gem. Eiruvin 21b
[vi] Gem. Avoda Zara 11a
[vii] Tehillim 121:8