(a)The Torah writes: "u'Chesavtam al Mezuzos Beisecha u'vi'She'arecha" (va'Eschanan). From "Beisecha" we learn that all the doors of our houses require a Mezuzah. Which three locations (besides the gate of the house - whose definition is unclear) do we learn from "u'vi'She'arecha"?
(b)Do the gates of a town in which some of its residents are non-Jews, require a Mezuzah?
(c)Then why did the inhabitants of Mechoza not fix a Mezuzah to the archways on which the Akra d'Kubi were built?
(d)Why should they nevertheless have been obligated, and on what grounds were they in fact, exempt?
(a)From "u'vi'She'arecha", we learn that the gate of the Chatzer requires a Mezuzah, the gate of a country (that is surrounded by mountains and forests, and which therefore requires a wall and gates as protection (see Rashash, who disagrees with Rashi), and the gate of a city.
(b)The gates of a town in which some of its residents are non-Jews require a Mezuzah - provided the majority of its residents are Jews.
(c)The inhabitants of Mechoza did not fix a Mezuzah to the archways on which the Akra d'Kubi were built - because they were only built in order to strengthen the building which was built on top of them.
(d)They should nevertheless have been obligated to fix a Mezuzah - because they contained a built-in residence for the guard. They were exempted however, on the grounds that the gentiles would accuse them of witchcraft, and this could cause a pogrom (which could have a fatal ending).
(a)How often must one examine the Mezuzos of ...
1. ... a private house?
2. ... a community house?
(b)When does a Shul require a Mezuzah, and when is it exempt?
(a)One is obligated to examine the Mezuzos of ...
1. ... a private individual - twice every seven years.
2. ... a community - twice every fifty years.
(b)A Shul is obligated to fix a Mezuzah when it has a built-in residence for the Shamash. Otherwise, it does not.
(a)What happened to Artavin when the officer caught him fixing a Mezuzah to the gates of the upper-market of Tzipori (Some say that Artavin means a foreman)?
(b)Why was he not immune to danger because he was a Sheli'ach Mitzvah?
(c)From whom do we learn that?
(a)The officer who caught Artavin fixing a Mezuzah to the gates of the upper-market of Tzipori - fined him one thousand Zuz.
(b)Although he was a Sheli'ach Mitzvah, he was not immune to danger, because 'She'liach Mitzvah Einan Nizokin' does not apply when the danger is evident.
(c)We learn that from Shmuel, who was afraid to go and crown David Hamelech - because Shaul might get to know about it and kill him (in spite of the fact that he was carrying out Hash-m's instructions).
(a)Rav Kahana interprets 'Mipnei she'ha'Nashim Ne'osos Bahen' to mean 'because women bathe there'. On what grounds does Rav Yehudah disagree with him?
(b)How does he interpret 'Mipnei she'ha'Nashim Ne'osos Bahen'?
(c)What is their basic Machlokes?
(a)Rav Kahana interprets 'Mipnei she'ha'Nashim Ne'osos Bahen' to mean 'because women bathe there' - in other words, storehouses are exempt from Mezuzah only because women tend to use them as bath-houses; otherwise, they would be Chayav. Rav Yehudah disagrees with him on the basis of a Beraisa, which exempts storehouses from Mezuzah, anyway.
(b)Rav Yehudah therefore, explains 'Mipnei she'ha'Nashim Ne'osos Bahen' - to mean 'although women tend to use them as make-up rooms (nevertheless, they are Patur from Mezuzah)'.
(c)According to Rav Kahana, a storehouse requires a Mezuzah, according to Rav Yehudah, it does not.
(a)How does Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa, which obligates the fixing of a Mezuzah to a stable if it is used by women as a make-up room?
(b)Store-houses and stables too, is a Machlokes Tana'im. How does Rav Kahana explain the Beraisa, where, after having listed a Beis ha'Merchatz among those that are Patur from Mezuzah, the Tana adds 've'she'ha'Nashim Ne'osos Bahen (which he interprets to mean 'bathe there')? Why is this not simply a repetition?
(c)Rav Yehudah maintains that there is no Machlokes regarding store-houses and stables, that all Tana'im agree that they are Patur. What conclusive Kashya does the Gemara ask on him?
(a)Rav Yehudah reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa, which obligates the fixing of a Mezuzah to a stable if it is used by women as a make-up room - by making it a Machlokes Tana'im.
(b)According to Rav Kahana, the Beraisa repeats the exemption of a bath-house, in order to add even a private bath-house to the list of exemptions - to teach us that the reason is not because of the sweat and brine that are inevitable in a public-bath-house, but because it is not respectful to afix a Mezuzah to a door where people stand unclothed.
(c)Rav Yehudah maintains that there is no Machlokes regarding store-houses and stables, that all Tana'im agree that they are Patur. He was obviously not aware of the Beraisa which explicitly obligates a Mezuzah to be fixed to stables, chicken-coops, and various kinds of store-houses.
(a)Even the Tana who obligates store-houses and stables, exempts some places from a Mezuzah. What are the following and why are they Patur:
(b)Is there any divergence of opinion regarding whether a bathroom, tannery, bathe-house and Mikvah require a Mezuzah?
(c)What is the Tana's source for exempting the Har ha'Bayis, the Lishkos and the Azaros from a Mezuzah?
(a)Even the Tana who obligates store-houses and stables to have a Mezuzah, exempts ...
1. ... a 'Beis-Sha'ar - which is a guard's hut that stands at the entrance of the courtyard and which is used as a short-cut.
2. ... an Achsadra - an anteroom in front of the main-room.
3. ... a Mirpeset' - a balcony whose main purpose is to climb up from it by means of ladders to rooms on the upper floor. They are all Patur (min ha'Torah) because they are not built to reside in.
(b)It is unanimously agreed that a bathroom, a tannery, a bathe-house and a Mikvah do not require a Mezuzah - because they are not residences of respectability.
(c)The Tana's source for exempting the Har ha'Bayis, the Lishkos and the Azaros from a Mezuzah - is the fact that the Torah obligates 'Bayis', and, due to their sanctity, these are not called Bayis (this is unclear, since, in a number of places, the Beis Hamikdash is referred to as Bayis).
(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah cited a Beraisa which exempts six types of doors from Mezuzah. Which three does he add to the four (types of storehouses discussed earlier)?
(b)What is a Sha'ar ha'Madi?
(c)How does Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah explain the fact that the Tana begins with six, and then goes on to list seven?
(d)In which case will the Rabanan agree that a Sha'ar ha'Madi is Chayav Mezuzah?
(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah cited a Beraisa which exempts six types of doors from Mezuzah: the four types of storehouses discussed earlier, a Sha'ar ha'Madi, a gate which has no ceiling or lintel above it, and one which is less than ten Tefachim tall.
(b)A Sha'ar ha'Madi is a Median gate i.e. an arch.
(c)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah explains the fact that the Tana begins with six, and then goes on to list seven - because it is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im, six according to the Rabanan (who hold that it is Patur), and seven, according to Rebbi Meir (who holds Chayav).
(d)The Rabanan will agree that a Sha'ar ha'Madi is Chayav Mezuzah if the legs have reached a height of ten Tefachim before the arch begins - because it can hardly be any worse than if, instead of the arch, the space was completely enclosed.
(a)Which two conditions does Rebbi Meir require before an archway can be Chayav Mezuzah?
(b)What is now the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan?
(a)Rebbi Meir requires a block of at least ten Tefachim by four from which to carve out the required Shi'ur (e.g. the curve is confined to the inside, but the outside is square-shaped). And he also requires that the legs reach a height of at least three Tefachim before the curve becomes narrower than four Tefachim.
(b)Rebbi Meir obligated such an archway - because he holds that, since there is already an opening of three Tefachim [high] by four [wide], 'Chokekin Lehashlim' (we consider as if the four Tefachim wide section was extended from three Tefachim to ten). The Rabanan do not hold of 'Chokekin Lehashlim'.
(a)We learned in a Beraisa that a Shul, a house belonging to a woman or one that belongs to two partners, is Chayav Mezuzah. Why would we have thought that they are Patur?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Eikev "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem ..."?
(c)What does Rava finally learn from "Beisecha"?
(a)If not for the Beraisa, we would have thought that a Shul, a house belonging to a woman or one that belongs to two partners, is Patur from Mezuzah - because the Torah writes "Beisecha" using both the masculine and the singular forms, to preclude both a house belonging to a woman and one that belongs to partners (incorporating a Shul).
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem ..." - that even a woman is Chayav Mezuzah, because she too, wants to live. And we know that a house belonging to partners is Chayav because of the plural of "Yemeichem" and "Beneichem" (Rashash). (Note: With regard to the obligation to affix a Mezuzah to the door of a Shul, see 10c. and d.)
(c)Rava finally learns from "Beisecha" - that the Mezuzah must be fixed on the right-hand side of the door (because he Darshens 'Beisecha - Derech Bi'ascha', and people tend to step into the house with the right foot first).
(a)In another Beraisa, we learned that a Shul, a house belonging to partners or that of a woman are all subject to Nega'im (Tzara'as Batim). Why would we have thought that they are not?
(b)Seeing as they are, why does the Torah write "u'Va Asher Lo ha'Bayis"?
(c)What is the first answer to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa which precludes a Shul from Nega'im?
(d)How do we then establish even the first Beraisa like the Rabanan?
(a)In another Beraisa, we learned that a Shul, a house belonging to partners or that of a woman are all subject to Nega'im (Tzara'as Batim). We would have thought that they are not - because the Torah writes "u'Va Asher Lo ha'Bayis", using both the masculine and the singular forms.
(b)The Torah write "u'Va Asher Lo ha'Bayis" - to teach us that someone who restricts his belongings to his own personal use (telling whoever asked him to borrow a vessel that he does not possess it), will eventually find his house stricken with Tzara'as. As a result, he will be forced to take all his belongings outside for everyone to see what he really owns, and to discover that he is a miser.
(c)The first answer to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa which precludes a Shul from Nega'im is that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Meir (who includes a Shul in the Din of Tzara'as); whereas the author of the second Beraisa is the Rabanan, who precludes it.
(d)We establish even the first Beraisa like the Rabanan, be establishing it by a Shul with a built-in residence for the Shamash.